If you start a clan, and take a break, kick all of your clanmates or this will happen

[(PSN)CaseFace8]

46 minutes ago, (PS4)AllOrNothinDays said:

a little confused by some of these comments to some degree. Unless it specifically states somewhere that this can happen, it shouldn't be done to be honest. People do have lives outside of this game and things happen, you shouldn't have to let everyone be aware that you're going to be gone for a while and that you'll be back and even if they did warn everyone, who is to say someone doesn't see an opportunity and take it upon themselves to snatch it away.

The clan belongs to the members not just the leader/creator, so that is why DE allows members to request a transfer of leadership. There are certain things only the leader can do, and depending on the ranks of the other members, there may be many more things they are unable to do. An active member should not be forced to leave a clan just because someone else decided to stop playing, especially if they have invested heavily in the clan. That is the reason the policy exists, to protect the people actually playing the game. People do have lives and things happen, but the other people in the clan should not be punished for it.

Clan members are given the ability to request leadership only if the leader has not played for 30 days. While we can argue about that grace period being adjusted, the actually ability to request the change of leadership is a good thing for clans. So while not logging on in a month is one thing (and can be seen a short time for some), not logging on for a whole year is another. Even if that was extended to 3 months it would have done nothing for OP. 

To your point about letting other people know. If you are the leader of a clan and know you are going to be away it is common courtesy to let another member know. You could either promote someone that you trust so that they have the ability to run the clan in your absence, therefore less of a need to request a leadership transfer. Or if you let your clan know you are going to be away for a few months (ie deployed for 3 months) they might be more likely to leave the clan under your control until you return. If your leader just disappears there is no indication that they will ever return. They could be back in a month, a year, or never. So without that information you are much more likely to want to take over. If your clan is toxic to the point that you are worried about people wanting to take over so badly that they wait for the grace period and immediately request leadership, it might be time for a new clan.

[(PSN)SageHeed]

I agree there should be a way for members to gain control over a Clan when its leader has been absent for some time, but that time should be at least 6 months. 30 days? That's literally one vacation trip to us in Sweden. Are you telling me we have to bring our PS4s up into the mountains so as to make sure we don't lose our Clans?

You could be in the hospital for one month for any number of reasons.

If you're a weekend player, you'd only have to miss four sessions for that one month to pass.

The Clan will survive just fine without the ability to start researching those handful new weapons that may or may not be introduced in those 6 months.

[KIREEK]

The email part i agree, it is indeed a nice addition to make the creator aware, the rest is your fault sadly.

If a leader is not present then what is he doing there to begin with?, your clanmates decided to put things in their own hands and asked to transfer the leadership to another capable player, your clanmates weren't going to do all the work for a year so you could have everything ready for yourself.

Lesson learned, pay attention to the things you are currently leading.

[Hypernaut1]

24 minutes ago, KIREEK said:

The email part i agree, it is indeed a nice addition to make the creator aware, the rest is your fault sadly.

If a leader is not present then what is he doing there to begin with?, your clanmates decided to put things in their own hands and asked to transfer the leadership to another capable player, your clanmates weren't going to do all the work for a year so you could have everything ready for yourself.

Lesson learned, pay attention to the things you are currently leading.

The email is interesting. If they email a Warlord, what if they just return for a day, then go MIA again? Prolonging the turnover indefinitely? It's almost better that they don't contact the Warlord outside of game. An in game notification would be given at least though.

[Arniox]

6 hours ago, (PS4)ArtPrince17 said:

Whoa, this is actually unacceptable! What kind of policy is this? It doesn't make any sense and is completely unfair. Needs to be immediately removed.

No it makes sense. If a clan leader decided to leave for a while and not set anything up, then a clan might die with no leadership or alliances to set up. This rule makes perfect sense. 

However, in hindsight, if you've been afk for ages, longer than 30 days, and someone wants to take over so that the clan doesn't die; then the request for control should be emailed to the original clan leader. 

If a leader is afk, but gets an email saying: hey, you've been away for a while, your second in command has the right to lead as well, do you give permission? Then the leader can reply and say yes or no but the leader just return to set up and fix the clan so it doesn't continue to rot. 

 

[CHEAT0S]

3 hours ago, SilverRook said:

@OP 

someone didn't set up their clan hierarchy properly...... NO ONE ... but NO ONE has the power to promote other than warlords in our clan. they can be invited by ANYONE but promotions must go through me.

Our original leader is still in our clan - i cannot remove him AT ALL because he has top power as clan owner.

also if you are gone for a long time other clan members can approach support and ask them to remove you.

and if you didn't set up your hierarchy up correctly - then no one would have been able to promote or do anything clan related - so sounds like since you were inactive for a year - they ousted you in your absence to progress the clan.

Seen it happen.

 

 

 

I'd say someone contacted support to get you removed because you were inactive

if you went to DE said he was gone and that you ran things according to the new policy DE would hand you control, my problem is that policy, not my experience, as again I made the proper calls on who was to lead and made sure they had all controls. I admit that I'm more likely the exception than the rule as far as leadership is concerned, that being said, for DE to come in and say "ok clan is not somebody else's to run with and the leader can then be ousted (again not my experience but another player's that was posted on this forum) is the problem i have with the current setup.

Assuming i dont know how to setup a clan hierarchy is well...it just makes an &#! out of you, not me since i did it properly and its this new policfy that i have a problem with

26 minutes ago, JSharpie said:

I mean DE can do anything because of the EULA/TOS, but it's not unheard of for people to contact support and ask that a clan leader who's been inactive for 1yr+ be demoted so someone else can take control.

I would argue that having a de facto policy instead of handing over complete control is a better solution, the leader doesnt lose the progress he spent in building up a clan, and the players left behind can still operate the clan. no troubles arise from this.

3 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

Except that it really isn't (even when you try to say "Either the leader kicks everyone or a 'de facto' leader thing is put in place!" are the only two options when there is a third option of "things continue on as they are now").

To see a full reason why read my post right above yours.
For a tl;dr reason: Because with a "de facto" ruler you know what will happen when the original leader comes back for a week and then leaves again for what-ever reason?  Oh yeah, the clan will be essentially paralyzed for a month or so until a new "de facto" ruler can be appointed.  So you came back for a week or whatever and left again.  Why should the clan have to go through an entire month before they are fully functional again?
With the current idea they don't have to wait a month of being paralyzed every time the leader signs in for a week before leaving for another six months.  The old leader can come back, do some things and then leave and the best part?  The clan isn't impacted by that at all unlike with your idea!

So no, your idea is not preferable to what is currently in game.

WHAT the F*** is so short term important that its paralyzing to the members of a clan that it must be acted on right that second? and not 30 days later? NOTHING THATS WHAT.

what functionality is required? Again whats so make or break that 30 days is going to harm you? in a PVE game? research? ill have you know that even my FNG rank (lowest) can select research. again my personal experience was alright because good management doesn't micro manage. But i digress, my experience here is not the issue, the policy is.

could you please explain what you fail to cite as an example of you "omg we need control now or we are all doomed" attitude is coming from? if its behavior, then you did a piss poor job in recruiting, if its research it can keep for 30 days, you wont be harmed. you act as if your life depends on there being a leader at all times, the truth is it doesn't, not in this game, I would argue if it were EVE then yes situation is different, but we aren't talking about another game we are talking about this one. I want to make that clear since you seem to fail to do so.

 

1 hour ago, (PS4)AllOrNothinDays said:

a little confused by some of these comments to some degree. Unless it specifically states somewhere that this can happen, it shouldn't be done to be honest. People do have lives outside of this game and things happen, you shouldn't have to let everyone be aware that you're going to be gone for a while and that you'll be back and even if they did warn everyone, who is to say someone doesn't see an opportunity and take it upon themselves to snatch it away.

This is another problem i see with the current policy, abuse. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

2 hours ago, Gabenight7 said:

Here's the issue. You clearly stated you were gone for a year, if you are gone that long someone needs to have leadership controls of the clan or else it will be entirely dead. I do feel that DE should make it so that you retain at minimum equal partnership to the other members or the ability to recover it. 30 days does seem a bit quick to have your ownership revoked but you shouldn't get all up in arms at DE for a system that makes sense. If my clan leader dropped off the map unexpectedly and it prevented us from being able to change the clan symbol or other such things, I'd be pissed beyond belief.

yes you bring up the point that the clan would need to have somebody exerting some sort of control while at the same time allowing the leader to be able to return to the clan they started. that again is why i think a de facto ruler position the players left behind could use, it would enable some control without overall loss of it by the creator.

[CHEAT0S]

4 hours ago, Hypernaut1 said:

So do you plan on staying this time? Has your love for Warframe been rekindled?

It remains to be seen, I can say that on the whole im not happy with how you are forced to do stuff you are not in the slightest interested in doing so you can do what you want to do, this is a new development and was not always the caser, but then again i have been playing this long before you could run on walls, with that said i necver bothered to fill out every spot on the map, because there really want any need to, once you got strong enough and enough formas in your frames off to pvp and the void you go. now its a damned shopping list of 403457635 things you need to do so you can get rivens.

5 hours ago, Tsukinoki said:

I'm surprised you cant see the important difference between the two, and how your idea has a negative impact on the health and functioning of the clan:
-With your idea say you come back after a year for a week, which gets rid of the "de facto" leader, and then leave again for another year.  The clan is utterly paralyzed and can't do anything until someone is re-approved for the "de facto" leadership which could take say a month.  That is an entire month where the clan is being hampered by the leader just up and disappearing.

-With the current way things are if you come back for a week and leave again nothing changes and no one even notices.  The clan is able to continue functioning 100% without any disruption.  This is much better than being paralyzed here and there for a month every time you decide "Oh, I'll play warframe for a short time..." and then quite again for who knows how long.

That's a pretty sizable difference in the two ideas, especially when plenty of people that leave the game for one reason or another come back after a year or more and just leave again after a few weeks or a month and then come back a year or more again later for the same length of time.
Why should the clan be essentially punished every time the old leader decides to essentially quit the game for another year?  You're idea would punish that clan over and over and over again because the leader is flaky. 
Their only two options would be:
A) Lose all of the money and resources and time spent in the clan to create a new one simply to not be punished the next time the leader comes back for a week just to leave again right after
B) Stay in the clan and be punished over and over by a clan that is utterly paralyzed every time its leader decides "Hey, I'll sign back into warframe and see how things have changed....oh never mind I'm not interested...I'll try again later..."

So yes, there is a big difference between your idea and how things work.
And how things currently work is much better for the majority than your idea.
I couldn't care less about the title, its a very fundamental change in functionality, and occasional loss for long periods of time that your idea would bring, that I care about.

I'm surprised you cant see the important difference between the two, and how your idea has a negative impact on the health and functioning of the clan:
-With your idea say you come back after a year for a week, which gets rid of the "de facto" leader, and then leave again for another year.  The clan is utterly paralyzed and can't do anything until someone is re-approved for the "de facto" leadership which could take say a month.  That is an entire month where the clan is being hampered by the leader just up and disappearing.

ok lets take your example, what specifically is so damaging that it will destroy your gaming life in this game if not acted apon right that second?

Why do you make it sound like a month is an eternity?

what specifically would be hampered?

With the current way things are if you come back for a week and leave again nothing changes and no one even notices.  The clan is able to continue functioning 100% without any disruption.  This is much better than being paralyzed here and there for a month every time you decide "Oh, I'll play warframe for a short time..." and then quite again for who knows how long.

How is your game play disrupted honestly? Do you think that the leader of a clan enables the functionality of it? can you not do missions or grind in the plains without a leader? Are and of the core funcionalities of the game taken away when a clan leader is not on?

What specifically do you think is so paralyzing that makes the game unplayable to you? you haven't cited one actual example in all of your sensationalism.

That's a pretty sizable difference in the two ideas, especially when plenty of people that leave the game for one reason or another come back after a year or more and just leave again after a few weeks or a month and then come back a year or more again later for the same length of time.
Why should the clan be essentially punished every time the old leader decides to essentially quit the game for another year?  You're idea would punish that clan over and over and over again because the leader is flaky. 
Their only two options would be:
A) Lose all of the money and resources and time spent in the clan to create a new one simply to not be punished the next time the leader comes back for a week just to leave again right after
B) Stay in the clan and be punished over and over by a clan that is utterly paralyzed every time its leader decides "Hey, I'll sign back into warframe and see how things have changed....oh never mind I'm not interested...I'll try again later..."

Your first part is pure assumption based, not worth answering

A) So you are under the assumption that the clan leader instead should have the same thing happen to them? As you said the should lose all of the money and time spent in the clan? The second part is strawman arguments.

B) what punishment, what paralyzing agent or game function are you referring to? Am I not allowed to check in with the game again? As far as i can tell thats been my biggest criticism, not checking in. But here you are saying i would cause your little world to end if i did exactly that.

So yes, there is a big difference between your idea and how things work.
And how things currently work is much better for the majority than your idea.
I couldn't care less about the title, its a very fundamental change in functionality, and occasional loss for long periods of time that your idea would bring, that I care about.

So far as I can tell the biggest difference in your view is that the leader of a clan should potentially lose all of the time and money and effort they put into the clan. because the only difference in what i propose vs what is happening currently is exactly that. the current leaders can be kicked from the clans they made, invested in and worked hard to build up. A de facto system would protect the leaders from the one and only specific thing you mention which is losing everything.

I get the feeling you need your hand held alot. which is not an insult. Some people are like that. But i dont micro manage everything a clan does. Nor would i recruit anybody that has those needs. Some people need to be told every single little thing. When i started the JUL it was because I at the time of forming it had all research done and never expected to have to worry about risking my investment in nopt only time but also money while at the same time helping new players get situated. I give out rare modes, prime frames that i have lying around, spare sets of prime guns. stuff that get people going. It sounds like you need to be told what mission to do at every turn. if this is not the case then im sorry. But you make it sound like if a leader isnt logged in then your little world falls apart

 

 

[krc473]

8 minutes ago, CHEAT0S said:

How is your game play disrupted honestly? Do you think that the leader of a clan enables the functionality of it? can you not do missions or grind in the plains without a leader? Are and of the core funcionalities of the game taken away when a clan leader is not on?

I get that this was not the case in your clan. But, some clans have it so only the clan owner can start research. If the clan owner is gone for a year, that is a pretty major issue - because the clan literally stays stagnant.

If you were just a member in that clan, but had contributed large amounts of time, resources and money to it, would you want to leave? How would you feel knowing you had wasted so much on a pointless venture?

I do think it is important that DE can promote other people to warlord, if the warlord has been gone a while. I do not think the new warlord should be able to remove the old one - this strikes me as unfair. I also feel that the old warlord should be able to request demotion of the new one, if said warlord is back online for more than 30 days.

 

Not sure if this got linked anywhere, but here is the related policy:

https://digitalextremes.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/200049929-Clan-Alliance-and-Dojo-Guide

[Tsukinoki]

1 hour ago, CHEAT0S said:

what functionality is required? Again whats so make or break that 30 days is going to harm you? in a PVE game? research? ill have you know that even my FNG rank (lowest) can select research. again my personal experience was alright because good management doesn't micro manage. But i digress, my experience here is not the issue, the policy is.

40 minutes ago, CHEAT0S said:

How is your game play disrupted honestly? Do you think that the leader of a clan enables the functionality of it? can you not do missions or grind in the plains without a leader? Are and of the core funcionalities of the game taken away when a clan leader is not on?

You don't think research is important?
What about this last event: Operation Plague Star.
If no one can start research guess what?  You can't make any Infested Catalysts which means you can't fight the hemocyte or get the hunter mods without 100% relying on other people in clans to have that research, and being completely reliant on being able to match with them.

What about Raids?
If you clan hasn't done the Jordas Verdict and researched the Antiserum injectors then you will have a much harder, if not impossible, time to find a group willing to host you in that raid.  If you can't start the research because your leader decided to be AFK its "Oh well, wait a month and hope that the leader doesn't come back during that time so you can get it researched"  And until then no raid.

Or what about other clan events in general?
You're pretty much telling players: "Oh well, just leave the clan you've invested a lot of time and effort into so you won't miss out on the event with your leader being gone from the game!"

Further DE has stated that there are clan orientated systems coming.  Which guess what?  Unless your clan leader is active or has given everyone the needed duties to be able to handle those systems you're stuck for 30 days every time the leader comes back for a short time and leaves if the game operated under your system.

So yes, your idea does punish players by paralyzing important aspects of the clan with absolutely no recourse for the clan members.

Not all clans are set up as yours are, nor should they all be expected to be.
The simple fact is that your idea would punish clans whose leadership comes back every so often by essentially paralyzing them for an entire month every time the leader decides to go away again.

[CHEAT0S]

27 minutes ago, krc473 said:

I get that this was not the case in your clan. But, some clans have it so only the clan owner can start research. If the clan owner is gone for a year, that is a pretty major issue - because the clan literally stays stagnant.

If you were just a member in that clan, but had contributed large amounts of time, resources and money to it, would you want to leave? How would you feel knowing you had wasted so much on a pointless venture?

I do think it is important that DE can promote other people to warlord, if the warlord has been gone a while. I do not think the new warlord should be able to remove the old one - this strikes me as unfair. I also feel that the old warlord should be able to request demotion of the new one, if said warlord is back online for more than 30 days.

 

Not sure if this got linked anywhere, but here is the related policy:

https://digitalextremes.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/200049929-Clan-Alliance-and-Dojo-Guide

What if you were a leader of a clan and had contributed vast amounts of time resources and money to a clan, would you want to have a system where you are booted and lose all of that work as well? because thats what the current DE policy allows for. I have been arguing for first off a change in that policy that protects the leader even if away just as much as the member.

personally speaking i have over 30 days played and thats in mission time not being logged in doing other things. the current policy means that had i not put the right person in place, arbitrarily i could have unknowingly lost all of that effort because i left the game. And thats another point I was never informed of this change at any point during my absence.

Yes for things like research sure there needs to be some control taken, again a defacto system would do exactly that. but there is nothing that this guy suggests that has to be done right that instant that 30 days later means its a make or break scenario

 

[CHEAT0S]

So let me get this straight, you think its a punishment if you arent on the bleeding edge of research.

Does this punishment hurt?

Is it traumatic?

Do you over sensationalize everything or just aspects of this game.

You keep going on the assumption that a month will harm you in some way.

If this is the case and you are terrified of not keeping up with the jonses, and mind you this is in a PVE game then why risk that sort of trauma and make your own clan so you would be protected from such grievous injury? yes you have to spend an insane amount of time and effort, but it sounds like you do that anyway. Now imagine that all of that time and effort were to vanish because you let people have access to that body of work.

wait....

that sounds alot like what is currently going on, yet you applaud that

[krc473]

2 minutes ago, CHEAT0S said:

Yes for things like research sure there needs to be some control taken, again a defacto system would do exactly that. but there is nothing that this guy suggests that has to be done right that instant that 30 days later means its a make or break scenario

As stated above: plague star. If no one could start the reasrch, that was pretty much the event ruined for your clan. I get that the person you quoted may not have provided a specific example. But you do not need one when it is blatantly obvious what the problem is.

5 minutes ago, CHEAT0S said:

What if you were a leader of a clan and had contributed vast amounts of time resources and money to a clan, would you want to have a system where you are booted and lose all of that work as well?

No, I wouldn’t. But this system has been around for a while, and I knew about it. I have taken that into account. If I stop playing, the next three people to get warlord won’t boot me. That’s why they have the ranks they do.

8 minutes ago, CHEAT0S said:

personally speaking i have over 30 days played and thats in mission time not being logged in doing other things

Could you elaborate on why this is relevant?

The system is days since last login, nothing to do with playtime. 

[CHEAT0S]

Just now, krc473 said:

As stated above: plague star. If no one could start the reasrch, that was pretty much the event ruined for your clan. I get that the person you quoted may not have provided a specific example. But you do not need one when it is blatantly obvious what the problem is.

No, I wouldn’t. But this system has been around for a while, and I knew about it. I have taken that into account. If I stop playing, the next three people to get warlord won’t boot me. That’s why they have the ranks they do.

Could you elaborate on why this is relevant?

The system is days since last login, nothing to do with playtime. 

no in your profile go to stats, that shows how long you have played while in missions, why is that relevent? because an overwhelming amount of that time was spent building up my clan, the fact that that entire body of work can be basically annexed because you are on a break for any number of reasons and not have access to it again is in my view wrong. And the current policy allows for exactly that

[sleepychewbacca]

Just now, CHEAT0S said:

no in your profile go to stats, that shows how long you have played while in missions, why is that relevent? because an overwhelming amount of that time was spent building up my clan, the fact that that entire body of work can be basically annexed because you are on a break for any number of reasons and not have access to it again is in my view wrong. And the current policy allows for exactly that

That's the issue that has developed. You seem to think that the system is wrong. The majority of responses in this thread disagrees with you for reasons that have been listed. You feel that these responses are wrong. 

At this point, you would be better off being in communication with Support directly. None of us would change our opinions, and this is pretty much amounting to a "I feel I am right" argument.

 

[krc473]

8 minutes ago, CHEAT0S said:

no in your profile go to stats, that shows how long you have played while in missions, why is that relevent? because an overwhelming amount of that time was spent building up my clan, the fact that that entire body of work can be basically annexed because you are on a break for any number of reasons and not have access to it again is in my view wrong. And the current policy allows for exactly that

It takes 30 seconds to log on to the game. Yes, this is not always possible, but once every 30 days?

 

Yes, the current policy needs to be changed. But until they do that, we are stuck with it. The only revision I can see is the ability to not kick the old Warlord. The system is in place to not penalise the people that play. If you do not log on, you are not playing. If your clan mates build stuff, start research etc in the year you are absent, they may well have more contributions than you. "But its my clan" does not mean you have the highest contributions. 

Example: the person I built my clan with hardly plays now. They have far less contributions than some of the new people I have recruited. (Note: I was clan Founder)

Edited November 29, 2017 by krc473

[S.Dust]

Can i just say besides doing research what else is so important about clans they just give you access to stuff so if people can contribute to research the clan leader should be able to quit the game and there shouldn't be a problem until DE reworks clans.

[CHEAT0S]

1 minute ago, sleepychewbacca said:

That's the issue that has developed. You seem to think that the system is wrong. The majority of responses in this thread disagrees with you for reasons that have been listed. You feel that these responses are wrong. 

At this point, you would be better off being in communication with Support directly. None of us would change our opinions, and this is pretty much amounting to a "I feel I am right" argument.

 

its not a matter of me litigating my point, but  pointing out the Hippocracy.  so many people feel that they are entitled to the very same thing that a clan leader should not because life happens. I find that wrong

[Dystopatica]

9 minutes ago, CHEAT0S said:

So let me get this straight, you think its a punishment if you arent on the bleeding edge of research.

Does this punishment hurt?

Is it traumatic?

 

Well it is a game with a lot of new shinies, updated regularly. 

Recently for example they could hypothetically have missed out on the Arca Plasmor, Baza, Arca Scisco, Twin Krohkur all which function fairly high end and that's not to discount the other new items that have popped up in the last year all that require other research to unlock.

Take into account say if the itzal research wasn't completed and they wanted this for the plains.. obviously I'm using the hypothetical here. But in a game where new things are released and people want the new things, its not a stretch.

Not traumatic obviously, not really a punishment but missing out.

I'm one of the few people on here that will actually probably agree with you to an extent. Its a kick in the teeth and its pretty sheeit, but you also have to allow for the fact that people dont come back sometimes. I think there should be emails reaching out explaining what is going on.

I'd be angry if this happened to me, more than angry i'm sure but then my clan is very small. I share the warlord title with my boyfriend and the other members have been told they are more than welcome to leave with no animosity if they ever want to find pastures new.

A year is a long time. Think of all the life events you've experienced in the last year, all the days and weeks and months. Its a long time for people to hold on waiting, not knowing if someone they probably looked up to is ever going to return.

I see people who have had their clans taken in 31 days which I think is an insult, but I'm much more forgiving of a year.

[krc473]

2 minutes ago, Dystopatica said:

Not traumatic obviously, not really a punishment but missing out.

The big issue recently was the event. The Infested Catalyst was clan only. If your clan could not research this, you lost 1k operation points a run. I would say this constitutes a punishment for staying in the clan. And, more than just the clan founder can have a lot invested in a clan.

As you say, a year is a long time. I would fully expect to be removed from Warlord position if I was gone for a year.

[CHEAT0S]

Just now, Dystopatica said:

Well it is a game with a lot of new shinies, updated regularly. 

Recently for example they could hypothetically have missed out on the Arca Plasmor, Baza, Arca Scisco, Twin Krohkur all which function fairly high end and that's not to discount the other new items that have popped up in the last year all that require other research to unlock.

Take into account say if the itzal research wasn't completed and they wanted this for the plains.. obviously I'm using the hypothetical here. But in a game where new things are released and people want the new things, its not a stretch.

Not traumatic obviously, not really a punishment but missing out.

I'm one of the few people on here that will actually probably agree with you to an extent. Its a kick in the teeth and its pretty sheeit, but you also have to allow for the fact that people dont come back sometimes. I think there should be emails reaching out explaining what is going on.

I'd be angry if this happened to me, more than angry i'm sure but then my clan is very small. I share the warlord title with my boyfriend and the other members have been told they are more than welcome to leave with no animosity if they ever want to find pastures new.

A year is a long time. Think of all the life events you've experienced in the last year, all the days and weeks and months. Its a long time for people to hold on waiting, not knowing if someone they probably looked up to is ever going to return.

I see people who have had their clans taken in 31 days which I think is an insult, but I'm much more forgiving of a year.

let me be clear im not oppossed to a system that allows for those things to happen, again citing my means of management, the lowest guy on the totem pole can do research. if there were a que system for research i would argue that should be in the hands of a higher rank in the clan. since there isnt there is absolutely no harm in just allowing the rank and file of any clan to be able to access that mechanic.

So suppose this then, if DE just said anybody can que up a research project then would there be so much alarm if a leader leaves for any amount of time? if thats the real underlying problem why not have all of us in unison argue for that? seems it would fix all problems across the board. and I for one would be its loudest proponent

 

[Dystopatica]

Just now, krc473 said:

The big issue recently was the event. The Infested Catalyst was clan only. If your clan could not research this, you lost 1k operation points a run. I would say this constitutes a punishment for staying in the clan. And, more than just the clan founder can have a lot invested in a clan.

As you say, a year is a long time. I would fully expect to be removed from Warlord position if I was gone for a year.

That is true (and any other events in the meantime).

I ran the event on my own, got our gold statue on my own as no one else was on, so I didnt really think of it that way. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Dystopatica]

Just now, CHEAT0S said:

let me be clear im not oppossed to a system that allows for those things to happen, again citing my means of management, the lowest guy on the totem pole can do research. if there were a que system for research i would argue that should be in the hands of a higher rank in the clan. since there isnt there is absolutely no harm in just allowing the rank and file of any clan to be able to access that mechanic.

So suppose this then, if DE just said anybody can que up a research project then would there be so much alarm if a leader leaves for any amount of time? if thats the real underlying problem why not have all of us in unison argue for that? seems it would fix all problems across the board. and I for one would be its loudest proponent

 

Hopefully with the dojo changes they are making something like that *might* be on the cards. Everyone in my clan has the option to build and destroy as they like, I'm not bothered everything can be remade with a bit of time if anyone went fully postal on the dojo (not that I believe they would).

[krc473]

1 minute ago, Dystopatica said:

That is true (and any other events in the meantime).

I ran the event on my own, got our gold statue on my own as no one else was on, so I didnt really think of it that way. Thanks for pointing that out.

I mean, aside from events and such, it is not a big issue.

But essentially being blocked from some aspect of the event is a big issue.

[Dystopatica]

Just now, krc473 said:

I mean, aside from events and such, it is not a big issue.

But essentially being blocked from some aspect of the event is a big issue.

Agreed.

[CHEAT0S]

2 minutes ago, CHEAT0S said:

let me be clear im not oppossed to a system that allows for those things to happen, again citing my means of management, the lowest guy on the totem pole can do research. if there were a que system for research i would argue that should be in the hands of a higher rank in the clan. since there isnt there is absolutely no harm in just allowing the rank and file of any clan to be able to access that mechanic.

So suppose this then, if DE just said anybody can que up a research project then would there be so much alarm if a leader leaves for any amount of time? if thats the real underlying problem why not have all of us in unison argue for that? seems it would fix all problems across the board. and I for one would be its loudest proponent

 

 

2 minutes ago, Dystopatica said:

Hopefully with the dojo changes they are making something like that *might* be on the cards. Everyone in my clan has the option to build and destroy as they like, I'm not bothered everything can be remade with a bit of time if anyone went fully postal on the dojo (not that I believe they would).

there are dojo changes incoming?

If its a way to remodel your dojo without either spending hundreds of dollars  or months on end im going to puch something lol.

but again if the rest of this thread is all up in arms over research as their primary rationale for booting a leader while away fro more than 30 days then put in a system where if the leader isnt on for more than a week the rest of the players can access that system. or be rational as management and not worry about it in the first place and open it up for everybody