I found that I could not neutrally on on this, so it turned into a rant. :o
The topic of clan leadership transfer keeps popping up in the suggestions forums, but it does in fact belong here.
Of course, when discussing clan leadership transfer, something else bears elaborating on first: Clans, and their leadership. It is obvious to almost anyone who is diving into this topic that people have different conceptions of what a clan leader's role and burden is or should be.
There are very few quantifiable aspects to clan leadership, but they are, already, fairly noticable: The SP and adena cost to raise the clan, and performing the level four and five clan quests.
Now, some will argue that transfering leadership - with all rights and responsibilities - to whoever is willing to perform these quests and have the appropriate SP deleted from their character. The implication of this is that all the clan leader ever does is quests - and certainly, in some clans this is true. The leader takes a passive role and lets everyone work.
However, to build a truly strong clan, the leader (along with his officers), has to invest a lot more work - there are several tasks which are required to build a solid clan, never even mind a strong one.
The clan leader has to recruit, and recruit carefully - inviting a single member that goes strongly against the clan's alignment can cause enough dissent to cause the loss of several others if the situation isn't handled appropriately. This goes straight on to the next point: The clan leader has to manage both internal and external conflict. A clan can stomach a few people who don't get on with each other, but it won't be strong unless the majority feel "at home" with the clan. This largely depends on the leader's and officers' careful recruiting and intervention.
Even knowing the clan's alignment isn't a natural thing. Many leaders make a clan and just start recruiting off the street, pattering along - and that might work out fine for them, but it would not work out fine for a possibly recruited ambitious member. Clan policies on legitimate play, PvP behaviour and other etiquette as well as gear sharing (where applicable) and politics are something that
Gear sharing is, for that matter, a touchy subject to the leader - he will usually, if there is gear-sharing, be the one who decides which gear goes where. He takes responsibility for getting clan gear back, and for only giving it out to people who will actually return it.
Beyond and through all of these duties, responsibilities and right, a clan leader has to earn his clan members' respect. This is possibly the hardest, and the most crucial part - an unrespected leader can not direct his clan, making them little more than a bunch of people who have a shared chat channel.
In the light of this, there are a few arguements for or against making clan leadership transferable.
Clans that formed from groups rather than as followers of the same person always argue that they do not wish to lose their progress or identity as a clan. The only thing I can say is that it's a dog eats dog world - if you trust the wrong healer to keep you alive in PvP (or go up against too strong an enemy), you're screwed. If you trust the wrong person to try on your gear, you're screwed. If you trust the wrong dwarf to crunch your stuff, you're screwed. If you trust the wrong person with your clan leadership, why should you not be screwed?
It is also frequently argued that a new leader should not be handed the member of a silver platter - people who disagree with this say that members who do not wish to serve under a new leader need merely leave the clan. I see two things wrong with this: Firstly, this penalises the member rather than the clan, when the clan is the one who brought about the change and should thus take responsibility. Secondly, there is a distinct difference between sticking with a clan with a change of personell and one that is reforming.
I am firmly convinced that no leader who can not make his members reform under him deserves the position.
There are many, other, smaller reasons - but this one is tough to argue with. Very few clans make it past the reforming without losing members (at least the inactive ones, for example), and those that lose little grow together closer for the whole thing, a good thing.
Making transfers available would reward the lazy and incompetent (those who can not keep their members) and punish the capable. That is, fortunately, not how Lineage II works for the most part.
However, I do see the reality of the problem - just from an organisation point of view. Leadership transfers are something painful for a weak clan, and there should be a reward for undertaking them.
If there were a system whereby you can register a splinter group of a clan (the reforming ones) as founding a new one, it would be nice if they could undertake an additional clan quest for a reward, although I'm not sure of what nature that should be - maybe an extension of clan membership levels.
The only good reason I can think of for transferring clan leadeship is if the clan leader is taking a break from the game, or can no longer devote the amount of time necessary to lead the clan.
Until reading your post I had always thought that this would be a good reason for the ability to transfer.
After reading your post, I must say that I agree with you. If the clan is a strong one, and they believe in the new leader, reformation will not be an issue, and neither would maintaining the clan's identity.
The only good reason I can think of for transferring clan leadeship is if the clan leader is taking a break from the game, or can no longer devote the amount of time necessary to lead the clan.
Until reading your post I had always thought that this would be a good reason for the ability to transfer.
After reading your post, I must say that I agree with you. If the clan is a strong one, and they believe in the new leader, reformation will not be an issue, and neither would maintaining the clan's identity.
Aye,
Was a good rant. Always thought clan leader is the backbone of the clan, and to swap that person for another has high chance of failure. Orginal clan leader could not walk away from problems and drama that comes up, and has to be the enforces of the rules. The new person put into place will be inheriting someone else's responciblities and might not be up for the challenge. Mainly due the new leader didnt learn from experience all the problems that come with being a leader. Also how dedicated would u be to continue someone's else work or ideas on how to play? Not going to be commited as orginal leader was.
Sometimes I think SP scrolls take away the learning curb to clan leaders now of days. Well thats another rant for another topic =P
To sum it up:
A strong clan can and must prove itself, for various reasons, when they wish to transfer leadership - by dissolving and starting anew. Once the trial is passed intact, the clan should receive some small reward.
It is also frequently argued that a new leader should not be handed the member of a silver platter - people who disagree with this say that members who do not wish to serve under a new leader need merely leave the clan. I see two things wrong with this: Firstly, this penalises the member rather than the clan, when the clan is the one who brought about the change and should thus take responsibility.
Erm what? How does that penalize anybody? As the system is now the members have to leave the clan anyways, so compared to what we have today no member would be in a worse situation. Furthermore, if you join a clan you willingly accept that this clan is able to penalize you. A clan can start a war, a clan can kick you - since when do you have an individual right to prevent clan changes?
Secondly, there is a distinct difference between sticking with a clan with a change of personell and one that is reforming.
Yeah and? A clan can reform under the same leadership and head into a totally different direction, a clan can sustain the same politics under a new leadership. I can't see any argument here.
I am firmly convinced that no leader who can not make his members reform under him deserves the position.
There should be a reason why clan leadership should not be transferable. The only thing you're saying here is, 'just make a new one' - with that line of argument you can always justify any reason.
There is no valid reason why a clan leadership shouldn't be transferable if there is somebody that is willing to take over the role. Most games i know offer some sort leadership transfer, unless the programmer were to lazy to implement it. But of course we can pretend that lineage2 is all hardcore and thats why, or better thats why account sharing is even more common than it would is anyways. But if you want to stick to a concept of 'blood pledge' and being hardcore, then we should stick to 1 clan for a lifetime - after all its about blood and swear loyality and stuff. And while we talk about roleplaying, in general no cult, no company, no clan disbands if the leader disappears and is replaced by somebody else. Of course it happens that ideas and structures fall apart if the leader disappears and just because leadership is transferable it doesn't mean that this is now impossible in lineage2 or something. If you enable leadership transfer, the clans have still to be careful about whom to recruit etc. pp., absolutly nothing will change apart from removing the annoyance of remaking the clan when there hardly is any reason for it.
The seven or five or ten days aren't a true penalty - they're time to think about your choices, and consider what you will do next. A penalty is running around with a tag that doesn't belong to you, a penalty is seeing your tag being carried by someone who has not earned the right to do so. There is such a thing as duty you can not slip out of, and leadership of a clan is one of them - if you go, you take the clan with you.
A clan can reform under the same leadership and head into a totally different direction, a clan can sustain the same politics under a new leadership. I can't see any argument here.
RCFTW, RICFTW. The point here is that if your leadership changes directions, you are more likely to stick around than if they made you disband and come back - and that includes a change in personell. If a leader wants to take a new political stance, that's up to them - but they're still your leader, and it means you either entrusted yourself to the wrong person or you agree with the change.
However, ask yourself, does someone who is trying to prove himself up to the challenge of leading the clan and can not even lead the members through re-uniting after a dissolvement (or pick a good new name for the clan for that matter) really deserve the position?
Should all the hard work (elaborated in the first part of the rant, which you carefully ignored as it is the true arguement against clan leadership transfer) the leader did to reach his position as master of a strong clan be judged so lowly as to simply pay for it with adena, SP and some measly delivery quest?
I think not. And this, if you could read, you would realise is the reason I am against clan leadership transfer. There is too much work a leader does that is not quantifiable and can not be demanded of his successor.
Even just getting everyone to leave clan and rejoin under a new tag is in no way comparable to the effort of raising the clan in the first place. It can not properly prove that the person who wishes to step up as leader is worthy of his position.
But one who is not even capable of that much can definitely be said not to be a worthy successor. If you don't even wish to deal with "that little hassle" for taking over weeks, or months, or even years of work, how do you think you will handle being in the actual position?
It's a test, and it benefits both the members and the new leader that it be undertaken.
It's not a matter of being hardcore, or roleplaying*, or being lazy programmers - it's a matter of these not being democratic, but feudal clans. The clan's name rides greatly on the leader's success, and none should have the opportunity to smuddle another's word like this.
* "I am sorry, my Lord, but I have served you ill long enough. I beg you, allow me to withdraw from your service so I may not bring further disgrace on your name," anyone? You've obviously not got much of a clue of roleplaying if you think there is no way to RP leaving or joining a clan, or dissolving it. RPers don't need their hands held. :p
I personally think its fair how the sytem is, our clan, 2 years going has had one transfer of leadership due to RL issues, but the leader now took the responsiblity to keep the clan involved in the transfer, retained the same name, even kept the former leader, and still thrives.
I agree that most clans are formed with "CLAN LF RECRUITS" isnt always going to work. Loyalty coming from a recruitment process makes for a stronger clan that can survive things like this. I'd rather be part of a clan that is small but is "family"
If they're feudal clans, then changing leadersships shouldn't be hard. Its really silly that there isn't a way to directly transfer the clan and its belongings over to a new leader, this especially means clanhalls, clan levels, etc.
This is an online game, many things can happen, a clan leader can get ill, get RL issues, etc. or you might realize that someone else might be much better suited to lead the clan.
Hey, we need a new pope. So everyone, you have to disband from the current catholic church, take all the valuables with us, disband all our holdings, houses and churches, then reform the whole catholic religion from ground up so we can get a new pope.
The seven or five or ten days aren't a true penalty - they're time to think about your choices, and consider what you will do next. A penalty is running around with a tag that doesn't belong to you, a penalty is seeing your tag being carried by someone who has not earned the right to do so. There is such a thing as duty you can not slip out of, and leadership of a clan is one of them - if you go, you take the clan with you.
Like i already said, there is not a single additional penalty for clan members you tried to point out. Anything from a clan member being forced to leave to a total change of politics and what defines the clan can happen now in the same way, as it could happen with a clan leader change.
RCFTW, RICFTW.
WOW! Pulling absurd abbreviations out of your ***, is that some ability you gain with more then 6000 posts? "Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront" seems to be most common use for it on the internet. If you want to say 'reading capabilities for the win', just write it out... it's not like you try to minimize your writing activities or something.
The point here is that if your leadership changes directions, you are more likely to stick around than if they made you disband and come back - and that includes a change in personell. If a leader wants to take a new political stance, that's up to them - but they're still your leader, and it means you either entrusted yourself to the wrong person or you agree with the change.
If the leader decides that it is time for a new leader, you know... i trust or even agree on his abilities to select a fitting successor? With which right you're telling me, 'sorry, but you have to leave the clan no matter how much everybody in the clan, including the clanleader agrees on that'?
However, ask yourself, does someone who is trying to prove himself up to the challenge of leading the clan and can not even lead the members through re-uniting after a dissolvement (or pick a good new name for the clan for that matter) really deserve the position?
Oh wait RCFTW, i already said that pulling the problem around and argueing with 'suck it up and just make a new clan' does not address the problem at all. I do not even start to think about this, because I can't see the point of not allowing a clan leadership transfer in the first place.
Should all the hard work (elaborated in the first part of the rant, which you carefully ignored as it is the true arguement against clan leadership transfer) the leader did to reach his position as master of a strong clan be judged so lowly as to simply pay for it with adena, SP and some measly delivery quest?
YES, ffs if the clanleader wants to, who are you to tell him not? In your rant you even nullified the reasons yourself and you used BOLD to emphasize other parts. The only thing you know about a clan leader is that he founded a clan and did a number of clanquests. Recruitment, politics, everything can be done be officers, vice-lords etc. and how a clan handles its internal issues is totally up to them.
I think not. And this, if you could read, you would realise is the reason I am against clan leadership transfer. There is too much work a leader does that is not quantifiable and can not be demanded of his successor.
It should be the clan leaders job to judge whether or not he is willing to give his clan into the hands of somebody else. Actually a clanleader might find that all the work he has invested into the clan is something which deserves to be maintained.
Even just getting everyone to leave clan and rejoin under a new tag is in no way comparable to the effort of raising the clan in the first place. It can not properly prove that the person who wishes to step up as leader is worthy of his position.
A clan can be run by somebody who is not the clanleader in name, you're acting like there is only a totalitarian top-down leadership with only goons below the clanleader. A even then a clan is an organisation and organisations do NOT have to fall apart because the leader changes.
But one who is not even capable of that much can definitely be said not to be a worthy successor. If you don't even wish to deal with "that little hassle" for taking over weeks, or months, or even years of work, how do you think you will handle being in the actual position?
You can bring this up, again and again - i'm not going to follow you on this pointless meander. If a clan is strong enough they will found themself new, if it is to weak they would even fall apart if the leader changes.
It's a test, and it benefits both the members and the new leader that it be undertaken.
Haha yeah and playing a paladin in pvp is a test to take see how hard you're as a player.
It's not a matter of being hardcore, or roleplaying*, or being lazy programmers - it's a matter of these not being democratic, but feudal clans. The clan's name rides greatly on the leader's success, and none should have the opportunity to smuddle another's word like this.
Good to know that you're the final judgement on how clans have to run, but even following that implication it doesn't justify anything. Every system with an organisation has a way to transfer leadership, this is true for countries, companies and w/e you're willing to take. Oh wait.. RCFTW i already wrote that and i'm starting to like this insult. A leader can normally appoint somebody who should follow his path, continue his effort and probably make even something better out of it.
* "I am sorry, my Lord, but I have served you ill long enough. I beg you, allow me to withdraw from your service so I may not bring further disgrace on your name," anyone? You've obviously not got much of a clue of roleplaying if you think there is no way to RP leaving or joining a clan, or dissolving it. RPers don't need their hands held. :p
LOL! _You_ obviously have not much clue about roleplaying. If somebody swears a blood oath, the only answer would be "Take this knife and release yourself from this world". In any sense roleplaying would only justify to implement a clan leadership transfer, as a leadership transfer without disbanding a whole organisation is the most natural and logical thing existing.(Should be now the third time i'm writing this, just for your RC) Refounding a clan makes as much sense as reinventing the wheel.
In some cases I think transfer would be a good thing, and in others a bad. Take for instance the clan I'm in, the leader, formed under what used to be his main, then decided to not play that character any more, and leveled up a new "main", when our clan decided to join an alliance, the alliance leaders were a bit wary to have us join simply because the in game system showed our clan leader as a different char than who the players considered our clan leader. As a result we decided that to be a more effective clan we would reform under what we considered to be our clan leaders main, he spent the sp on his original main, and had to respend the sp on his new main.
I think that clan leadership transfer could be implemented in such a way that you could transfer leadership from one char to another char on the same account, otherwise, leave it as it is.
I was writing long and hard on a reply for that, but I think we'll just get longer and longer if we multi-quote each other.
1.) Yes, the abbreviation was unneeded and childish. My apologies, no buts. I got ticked off because you read past key points in my post (or didn't address them), and I felt disrespected.
2.) There is a way to transfer leadership (disband and remake), so the whole "all organisations have a way to do this" thing doesn't exactly fly. I don't find this method "sufficient", in fact I wish it was harder - something like an extended penalty for founding a clan after you got kicked, left or suffered a disbanded clan. But that doesn't work, and I can't have everything my way. I have elaborated on the reasons why I think this is sufficient.
3.) "The leader has the authority to say what is going to happen with the clan in the future," has some very good merit. I almost took my clan leader's advice and joined a particular clan, too, until I realised they weren't right for me. The point here, however, is that he did make a recommendation rather than trying to force a new leader on us. He knew that by leaving, he had already neglected his duty as the leader and lost the formal authority to command.
4.) All this clearly doesn't address "leadership changes of convenience" but only "actual leadership changes" - getting a more sturdy character to be the leader so he can engrave better (I heard something about that at any rate), getting a character that won't miss the SP so much. Personally, I don't think such a situation carries more weight than an actual leadership change and should be considered more important than it.
5.) There's the permanent problem of "democratic" clans. In these clans, it's usually unnecessary to have a formal leader as long as you have an officer with appropriate rights. Moreover, these clans above all need to make sure they don't elect the wrong member into a position of power. I believe, once again, that the tiny trial of remaking is an utterly positive thing here.
If someone presents a clan leadership change mechanism aimed at keeping the name but doing all the things that a dissolvement and reformation demanded of a clan, I'll be all for it. Until then, you're skipping an important part of a shift in power in my eyes.
PS: Whatever oath is sworn when joining a clan depends on the clan, but it is not one sworn on blood and life by default. Otherwisely, there would be no kick, leave and disband buttons.
Some will disagree with this and create clans that require such a blood oath, who might hunt down a traitor who lived on afterwards - good for them. ;) Some will even disagree with the relevancy of those buttons to roleplay - and I say, go back to your pens and papers and livejournals if you don't want buttons.
PPS: I'm not the final judge on how clans should be run. There is no voting system, and power is centralised absolutely in Lineage II clans. It is a fact that the clan template is leader-centric in its very basic nature, even if you try (and possibly succeed) in running a democratic clan over it.
Don't bring a RL comparison here - and yes, when a feudal lord died, all his retainers/vassals had to renew their pledge to his successor.
Yes, they did, but they didn't have to disband all holdings, standings etc. Like an Noble died, his successor would usually inheret land, title and estate.
Don't bring a RL comparison here - and yes, when a feudal lord died, all his retainers/vassals had to renew their pledge to his successor.
Yes, they did, but they didn't have to disband all holdings, standings etc. Like an Noble died, his successor would usually inheret land, title and estate.
Quoted for truth.
When the lord died, they didn't have to take apart the castle, give up everything that was in the vault, and rebuild the kingdom from the ground up. They just swore loyalty to the new lord and went on with their business.
Clan leadership transfer should be avilalbe on the Clan leaders window with a drop down of all current players inside clan. If he/she feels one of these members can do the job, u just click on a transfer button and voila its done.
It DOES not need to be more complicated then that.. sry, it doesnt....
If the clan leader doesnt see any wordy successor then by all means dispand it.
This is an important feature to consider, because why should a clan with Clan hall or castle be penalized because a clan leader needs to step out, they sure as hell dont.
Acquirering castle and/or Clan hall was a clan effort, of that i am sure, so why should they loose that on the basis that one member (who happens to be the clan leader) needs to leave..
Sry, it must be implemented and it must be as easy as presing a transfer button. Voilla!!!
Lets not make this game even more hard because of a lil ommision on the clan leader's admin window.
Clan leadership transfer should be avilalbe on the Clan leaders window with a drop down of all current players inside clan. If he/she feels one of these members can do the job, u just click on a transfer button and voila its done.
It DOES not need to be more complicated then that.. sry, it doesnt....
If the clan leader doesnt see any wordy successor then by all means dispand it.
This is an important feature to consider, because why should a clan with Clan hall or castle be penalized because a clan leader needs to step out, they sure as hell dont.
Acquirering castle and/or Clan hall was a clan effort, of that i am sure, so why should they loose that on the basis that one member (who happens to be the clan leader) needs to leave..
Sry, it must be implemented and it must be as easy as presing a transfer button. Voilla!!!
Lets not make this game even more hard because of a lil ommision on the clan leader's admin window.
You can argue the convenience of the whole thing, but the loss of clan hall/castle for trusting the wrong leader (i.e. one that quit before you) is fully and absolutely justified.
I suppose that'll have to be agreed to disagree upon though.
Yes, because a clan leader dying in RL for instance shows you really trusted the wrong person, what dumb player would trust a person that could die in RL????
The game can't account for RL casualities and that's not what I meant, and I believe you're well aware of that. Twist my words more, will you?
I'm fully aware that there are good reasons for a clan leader to step down - but any transfer system kicks the door wide open for reasons that aren't good.
Wide open for what reasons? The current system doesn't make any sense, neither gamewise, historicalwise or feudalwise.
There are numerous reasons, most of them more than valid, as to why a clanleader would need someone else to take the task.
The *only* and yes I do mean *ONLY* reason this hasn't been a bigger issue is because so far people have been using illegal means to bypass the whole thing.
So tell me, is it all right for someone to sell the clan off to someone for ingame money? Is it all right to casually hand around leadership, based on moods? Is it all right for a clan that relied on someone who keeps disappearing for weaks on end as their centerpiece to prevail?
I still believe that most clans faced with legitimate circumstances will have no problem mustering the dissolve and regroup.
I also still will agree to any transfership system that puts appropriate trialling on whoever is supposed to be the new leader - but no idea from all the people who said "make it possible" was anything short of a joke.
Just redo the quests - right?
The current system works, and works well. People keep saying to change it, but I haven't heard a really viable alternative.
PS: Yes, I've been through several reforms. Some worked, some didn't. All ended up "for the better".
PPS: How will a clan leader that's actually switched transfer leadership through any system like this?
At first, I thought this was a post from maline on why we should be able to transfer leadership. Now I am thoroughly confused as to his/her stance.
I personally don't agree with passing off leadership to be an easy,convienient or rewarding experience. As a clan leader myself, I hold a certain aura around my clan. People know what to expect when they deal wih me, or my clan members. When I decide to move on and not be a leader anymore, my clan should die with me. If someone from my clan picks up the mantle, makes a new clan, that is their own leadership, and their own aura. This isn't a game of democracy where we elect people to lead.
I made my clan. I sacrificed the sp. I built it with my clan members to lvl 5. Together we bonded and grew. That strength wouldn't be the same if I did all that, then hit a button and transferred it to someone else without the consensus or approval of the people that I serve in my clan.
For those clan leaders that decide to re-roll, you are simply screwing your people. Every clan has its own style, but when you topple the name of the clan leader by quitting the toon, you topple your own sovereignity as a leader.Sure you can bounce back and recover nicely. But that seed of doubt has been planted in more than one of your clan members.
I was attempting to elaborate on the reason why people think it should be possible, and why I don't think any of them are good reasons. I fully agree with your stance - if the leader changes, the clan won't be the same anyway - so why let it be the same formally?
So tell me, is it all right for someone to sell the clan off to someone for ingame money?
Regardless of how hard or easy you make, that can be done anyway.
Is it all right to casually hand around leadership, based on moods?
Yes, if the clanmates like that, then they'll stick around. You are aware of that a clanleader can arbitrarily kick anyone from the clan, so your point is really moot.
I still believe that most clans faced with legitimate circumstances will have no problem mustering the dissolve and regroup.
Of course they will have if its a high level clan, it has a name, clan hall, etc. And its a huge hazzle to reform and regroup a clan. But of course, most clans get around that by "other" means these days.
I also still will agree to any transfership system that puts appropriate trialling on whoever is supposed to be the new leader - but no idea from all the people who said "make it possible" was anything short of a joke.
I am not really sure why the heck trialling is needed??? It should be up to the clanmembers themselves whom they trust enough to be in clan with, leaving and joining clans is easy individually.
The current system works, and works well.
No it doesn't. Its artificially being supported purely by ILLEGAL means. Otherwise the clansystem in Lineage 2 is inferior to other MMORPGs out there.
People keep saying to change it, but I haven't heard a really viable alternative.
Just directly transfer leadersship with a button in the clan tab would work fine (and they should add an alliance tab while they're at it). Then add some XP/SP penalty for both parties involved. Both characters should get a confirmation gump to approve transfer.
When I decide to move on and not be a leader anymore, my clan should die with me.
And nothing is preventing that from happening even if clans could be transfered. It wouldn't be transferable WITHOUT your concent.
That strength wouldn't be the same if I did all that, then hit a button and transferred it to someone else without the consensus or approval of the people that I serve in my clan.
Neither would it be if you simply kicked every member from the clan and remade a new totally different playstyle clan with new members.
If you transfered it to someone else, that would be your right as clan leader and only you could do so.
When you accept a clan invitation, you make your Blood Pledge to a specific leader. Allowing leadership to be transferred circumvents the oath process, without the consent of those that have taken the oath by affirmative ratification (joining the new blood pledge).
The clan leader IS the clan. A new leader makes it a new clan. A new clan should require a new oath. And the prior clan name and leadership should be reserved to the prior clan leader until affirmatively disbanded.
That makes no sense. You can do that already anyway. A clanleader can transfer the clan over without the concent of the clanmembers.
The only difference between the two is that in my case, the clanmember would have to leave the clan, in the other he'd just be removed, so basically the same penalty.
And heck, nothing would prevent the system to be set up for you to simply having to acknowledge a clan leadersship and swear loyalty to a new leader or be removed from the clan. (which a clanleader could have done anyway)
The current system is nonesense, not needed, and encourage illegal gameplay like hell. I've lost track of how many clans have their clanleaders on shared accounts between officers to have the clan function, or people who simply had a new character powerleveled up to instant overtake a new clan (with or without the blessing of current clanmembers) or clans that has a clanhall and then have to go "play the next level" to get enough adena to outright buy the clanhall back when put up for bid when the clan is reformed.
Stupidity at best, and I don't think I could say on this forum what it is at worst.
Your idea of allowing clan leader transfer is for that one instance where it is needed. Where all members are happy about it. Where the leader disbands or just quits L2.
There are soo many illegit uses of switching clan leaders that you are not adressing. If the clan leader boots you, you are not in that same clan anymore. Whether it is remade with the same name or not, it is not the same. The leader is different. If you re-roll, and make another clan, with the same name, and the same people, it is still not the same. It is a different clan with a different leader.
The best way I know to relate this is when people leave clan over whatever issues they have. If and when they come back, nothing is the same. You don't have the exact same friends with welcome arms, because someone will feel you betrayed their trust by leaving in the first place. You won't maintain your stance as a credible member of the clan. You need to prove your committment all over again.
Ponder on that chaos, and you might see some of our perspectives. The system in place does not allow abuse. That's the way it should be.
Your idea of allowing clan leader transfer is for that one instance where it is needed. Where all members are happy about it. Where the leader disbands or just quits L2.
There can be numerous reasons already mentioned, could even be that another person in the clan is a better leader or has more time to perform duties like siege signing, authority, clan warehouse, etc.
There are soo many illegit uses of switching clan leaders that you are not adressing.
Then name them instead of making up stuff.
Whether it is remade with the same name or not, it is not the same.
Thats not really up to you to decide, for many others clans are more than their leader is, and other MMORPGs with FAR larger and better clans/guilds show this. Other organisations in life don't function this way and never have.
The system in place does not allow abuse.
Thats exactly what it does, it encourages illegal gameplay.
The only people who could truly be against this are either very inexperienced people, people who don't understand it or clanleaders so butthurt and insecure about their own imaginary power that they want to be it all at all times, regardless of the cost.
When you promote a new leader, it's a new clan, and should be recognized as such by all of the game's mechanics.
It also serves the useful purpose of requiring members to choose between competing leaders. An example would be when the 1st leader takes a break and later comes back. Does he get to repossess the clan he transferred to someone else? Or must he make a new clan of his own? In which case, shouldn't he be entitled to the clan name and icon he created prior to transfer?
Those are some of the reasons why I say there should be no transfers. And anyway, transfers are unnecessary because SP scrolls easily available. It seems to me that all of the "benefits" you allege favor weak clans that probably deserve to die out anyway.
Its origins, despite dirty minds, isn't from anything sexual, but simply refering to people getting their butts spanked/whipped/hit by someone and crying over it like a child.
Its origins, despite dirty minds, isn't from anything sexual, but simply refering to people getting their butts spanked/whipped/hit by someone and crying over it like a child.
Websters Dictionary it is not (yes, I've read a lot of Urban Dictionary). None of those explain its origin, although #10 was particularly nice. Think what you want, however. The only people I've heard using that term (mostly on Blah) are probably so far in the closet, they're in Narnia (no, I didn't make that up).
From what I read there are two different views of what is a clan.
Maline seems to think the clan is more than the sum of its members, a balance between opinions, assentiment and leader recognition.
That's the immaterial side of things. A commitment from which comes the reward : being a leader, as a role and a construction.
The other consider the asset side of a clan. A clan is a name (reform and you might lose it...), belongings (halls, castle, warehouse) and an history. The material side.
From Maline's point of view a newcomer could come and have all this handed out for free while it should be hard to get. She doesn't want that.
For the others, ppl who don't fit in the newly transfered structure simply can leave, but losing a leader, whatever the reason should not force you to lose all you gained. "Let someone step up ! Leader's down ! Long live the leader!"
...
First I'd discard any reference to the quests as clan level "achievements".
They're a joke. Any 60+ can make a level 4 clan in a day or two.
SP scrolls are FOR SALE .... and you only need a few mils SP, hence a few mils adena.
As for the proof of alliance... LOLZ. It was hard in C2 when we were 50+, right. Now any walking thing with 4 accounts can make it. Less accounts if you switch toons.
Now the main point is "should every clan leader have to live all the struggles of reforming and losing all their assets because its predecessor had to go ?"
That's where I say no.
Having to step down, for whatever reason, even ingame reasons should not have such hard consequences. What if the clan leader simply made new friends and wanted to join another clan ? What if he's RPing and willing to be a retired monk in Dragon valley and abandon his circlet ? Should all the members of his clan who also ARE the clan be crushed in the process ?
Hell no. The leader is NOT the clan. I don't buy a single second that immuable and faultless leader concept. A clan is the sum of all things mentioned above and should survive the departure of one, even if it's the leader.
As for the system, many can fit. Here's some meat :
A:
Let each clan leader chose between tirany and democracy.
He chose a democracy ? The leader or a quota of members propose elections. Members step up to get the role. Ppl vote. Leader is designated.
Tirany ? Have ppl challenge the leader.
B:
Just let the clan leader transfer his role (to someone who has to accept it) and don't force him to a lifetime commitment or his clan to a huge loss if he has to go.
1. If there is a better leader, let them make the clan, and disburse what you have. What you are talking about is a democracy. This is not what Lineage2 is based on.Welcome to darwinism.
2. How about an ebayed clan hall? How about a botted toon as a re-roll? What about farmers passing on the wh's when they know they will be banned?
3. It is for me to decide. I am the clan leader. My clan functions well. I have it set up that there is a council within my clan that speaks with my authority, and I back them up 100%. They do not have my account info, nor I theirs.
4. I have been a clan leader for well over a year on one of hindemiths oldest alliances. I have been playing L2 since C1. My alliance has owned many castles over time. We have had our ups and downs and have reformed under new leaders a few times. What you refuse to entertain Chaos, is that option was left up to each and every member to reform. When my old Divine clan leader decided to quit game, I took up the torch. I lost a few inactives, both the others chose to give me a chance as a leader. To date, I have had a total of 5 people leave my clan (not booted), because my leadership style didn't match what they were looking for. I really don't find that to be bad stats considering the time, and the goals of some players.
5. I don't feel I have any imaginary power. My sole power is being a conduit for my clan members to have fun in the game, and let me worry about the crap that people like you bring to the table.
It is very apparent that you are either the leader that couldn't handle the grind and quit, or you are a very unsatisfied clan member that wants leadership of someone else's work handed to him and to hell with each members opinion of you.
Either way, there are many viewpoints. I find yours are ignorant and self serving. When I decided to become a clan leader, I made the committment to my members. I made the sacrifice of being allowed to freely play the game on the top end so that my clan members can without everyday hassles.
Give us some of your background and why you feel you are a credible source as to how running a clan works.
From what I read there are two different views of what is a clan.
Maline seems to think the clan is more than the sum of its members, a balance between opinions, assentiment and leader recognition.
That's the immaterial side of things. A commitment from which comes the reward : being a leader, as a role and a construction.
The other consider the asset side of a clan. A clan is a name (reform and you might lose it...), belongings (halls, castle, warehouse) and an history. The material side.
From Maline's point of view a newcomer could come and have all this handed out for free while it should be hard to get. She doesn't want that.
For the others, ppl who don't fit in the newly transfered structure simply can leave, but losing a leader, whatever the reason should not force you to lose all you gained. "Let someone step up ! Leader's down ! Long live the leader!"
...
First I'd discard any reference to the quests as clan level "achievements".
They're a joke. Any 60+ can make a level 4 clan in a day or two.
SP scrolls are FOR SALE .... and you only need a few mils SP, hence a few mils adena.
As for the proof of alliance... LOLZ. It was hard in C2 when we were 50+, right. Now any walking thing with 4 accounts can make it. Less accounts if you switch toons.
Now the main point is "should every clan leader have to live all the struggles of reforming and losing all their assets because its predecessor had to go ?"
That's where I say no.
Having to step down, for whatever reason, even ingame reasons should not have such hard consequences. What if the clan leader simply made new friends and wanted to join another clan ? What if he's RPing and willing to be a retired monk in Dragon valley and abandon his circlet ? Should all the members of his clan who also ARE the clan be crushed in the process ?
Hell no. The leader is NOT the clan. I don't buy a single second that immuable and faultless leader concept. A clan is the sum of all things mentioned above and should survive the departure of one, even if it's the leader.
As for the system, many can fit. Here's some meat :
A:
Let each clan leader chose between tirany and democracy.
He chose a democracy ? The leader or a quota of members propose elections. Members step up to get the role. Ppl vote. Leader is designated.
Tirany ? Have ppl challenge the leader.
B:
Just let the clan leader transfer his role (to someone who has to accept it) and don't force him to a lifetime commitment or his clan to a huge loss if he has to go.
Hello? The name of the game is LINEAGE. What do you suppose that means?
One clan. One King.
Edit: I will also agree with MyIvy, except to note that the sacrifices of leadership are not without their rewards.
I agree, there are rewards, I just reinvest them back into my clan i guess. Personally, I like having a friendly base of people around me to be in my clan. I do not want to be the tyrant or dictator, but there is a time and a place for each type of action.
1. That has nothing to do with Democracy or Darwinism.
2. You can already do that.
3.
It is for me to decide. I am the clan leader.
Duh! Nothing would change for you. You still have all the decisions. What changes now is that OTHER clan leaders can also decide what they want to do. This has nothing to do with clanmembers which don't get to chose in any regards beyond what they're authorized to.
4. So? I've been leading clan and alliances since beta. I've been a major part and lead a guild thats now over 8 years old. If you wish to run your clan like that, more power to you, but changing the system to enable clan leader transfer doesn't alter any of that for you at all
5.
It is very apparent that you are either the leader that couldn't handle the grind and quit
LOL, I've been playing since beta and never quit. Our clan still exists to this day, I still have clan leadersship, and we still have fun. We've had ups and downs, a castle, alliances, etc. the works.
6.
I find yours are ignorant and self serving.
What a joke, you're the only self-serving person here, wanting to limit others enjoyment of the game just so you can have an imaginary position which you would have anyway.
Ok, I went back to your first coherent post where you suggested a fix instead of whining about everyone elses stance. My comments in red, and frankly im done with your arguments as they make no sense to me. The system is only flawed in that the responsibilities of the clan leader should be better delegated. I totally disagree with one day im the leader, next day you are the leader. No clan would function well like that.
So tell me, is it all right for someone to sell the clan off to someone for ingame money?
Regardless of how hard or easy you make, that can be done anyway. By Illegit means only.
Is it all right to casually hand around leadership, based on moods?
Yes, if the clanmates like that, then they'll stick around. You are aware of that a clanleader can arbitrarily kick anyone from the clan, so your point is really moot. Handing over leadership and kicking people from your clan are two separate things. The new leader will have to redo everything, which takes time, adena and sp. As well as the trust of his newer clan members.
I still believe that most clans faced with legitimate circumstances will have no problem mustering the dissolve and regroup.
Of course they will have if its a high level clan, it has a name, clan hall, etc. And its a huge hazzle to reform and regroup a clan. But of course, most clans get around that by "other" means these days. Again, non legit means which I still don't condone nor practice
I also still will agree to any transfership system that puts appropriate trialling on whoever is supposed to be the new leader - but no idea from all the people who said "make it possible" was anything short of a joke.
I am not really sure why the heck trialling is needed??? It should be up to the clanmembers themselves whom they trust enough to be in clan with, leaving and joining clans is easy individually. I agree here, the trial is already in place with the 5 day penalty for leaving/being booted from your old clan.
The current system works, and works well.
No it doesn't. Its artificially being supported purely by ILLEGAL means. Otherwise the clansystem in Lineage 2 is inferior to other MMORPGs out there.
People keep saying to change it, but I haven't heard a really viable alternative.
Just directly transfer leadersship with a button in the clan tab would work fine (and they should add an alliance tab while they're at it). Then add some XP/SP penalty for both parties involved. Both characters should get a confirmation gump to approve transfer.
This is my biggest headache with your whole point. I won't regurgitate my posts, but I already covered these types of situations. When the alliance or clan leader quits, they are essentially a dead toon. Time to move on to a new leader, new clan name and new alliance name.
Its already been done, it simply transfers the clan as is over to a new character with X penalty to both characters involved. Wars, holdings, siege signups, castles, etc. stay the same.
Both characters (the current clan leader and future clan leader) has to approve the transfer
Members transfer over as well, but should either recieve a clear notification (and then they can simply leave the clan if they just like it, just like they have to do with anything else) or have to "swear alligience" to remain in the clan.
There should be a timelimit just like when leaving a clan, where you have to wait anything from 7 days to a month before you can transfer again.
Fairly simple, and not any more abusable than the current system is.
That's pretty **** cheap, unless it's a very, very major chunk.
And even so, I wouldn't agree to it - I've seen a few guild break-ups, as well as successful transfers, in systems without official transfer, and I can honestly not say that a transfer would have made the situation better rather than worse.
No, people are agreeing to disagree with you - the notion that a clan leader should be able to step down at the drop of a head because he "wants to go play with friends" or doesn't feel like playing anymore is simply too far out to anybody to bother trying to debate with you.
But the same goes for LordChaos, who obviously doesn't understand how muchs uch an option would bother many people not as leaders but also as members.
You know, I expect there wouldn't be such a high demand for a clan transfer mechanism if clan leaders were able to give more permissions (especially the ability to access the clan wh), and possibly the ability to start/end wars and sign up for sieges and the like. I'm sorry, but an entire clan should not be completely gimped if the clan leader needs to go out of town for a week.
And I do believe war permissions can be given - at least I thought I heard something about our second in command declaring a war and/or calling it off, but I'm not sure.
Cool, 18 hours, 10 replies and not a dent made to my post.
I won.
Yes there was. Someone disagreed with your OPINION. You lose. Also, I would've replied but it basically would've just been "I disagree with your opinion."
Your master debating skills are not as great as you think (dispite obvious years of practice).
the notion that a clan leader should be able to step down at the drop of a head because he "wants to go play with friends" or doesn't feel like playing anymore is simply too far out to anybody to bother trying to debate with you.
(At last some activity...)
And I really wonder why it would be too far off.
It is for you but are you a majority and no one told me ?
So you basically mean that a clan leader, because he formed a clan, cannot chose to do whatever he wants in his life...
And that if he does, all the ppl who embarked with him have to suffer, the more the better.
A kind of moral engagement where he promise to lead till his death... rl or gamely.. and screw everyone when he dies (Rly or gamely.. being burned out)
Yes there was. Someone disagreed with your OPINION. You lose. Also, I would've replied but it basically would've just been "I disagree with your opinion."
Lol SirE.
Really, do you think that
Hello? The name of the game is LINEAGE. What do you suppose that means?
One clan. One King.
is a validly formed argument with some premises and a conclusion who would infer that what I said was not valid ?
(If yes you can brush the poster aside just by saying every King has a heir or a successor of a form.)
Your master debating skills are not as great as you think (dispite obvious years of practice).
Ty for the part which infer a certain degree of 'mastery' came from practice.
For the snapish side of the sentence I'll honestly say I think my skills are high enough for the vast majority of the posts on these boards.
And in this case high enough since the two words "I won" had quite a bunch of people to respond.
As for pure quality...
I truly still miss Darraess and Arigato. They were challenging...
That's right - a clan leader takes on responsibility, and that means not being able to do whatever you want.
This isn't a matter of majority either, if only because there will never be getting an accurate view of any majority through any forum attached to a game.
The clan leadership should mean something- a lot, at that. I find it very bad as is that people choose for practical reasons to have a character that is not actually the leader hold formal leadership. If I could, I would find a way to fix this.
Any attempt to quantify that, especially cheaply (such as with a simple one-button for ++leadership --exp/SP), seems idiotic to me.
There is a solid transfer system in class, which quantifies it into time, SP, money and some bare minimum of organisational skills. Not a lot, in my mind, but too much for many it seems. I just wonder - if you're not willing to do that much for your clan to live on when it's in trouble, should you keep being a clan?
As someone who has recently lost a very good clan to a failed reform/move: no, it should not. It would be spitting in the face of that leader, and it would be spitting in the face of all of us as members.
the notion that a clan leader should be able to step down at the drop of a head because he "wants to go play with friends" or doesn't feel like playing anymore is simply too far out to anybody to bother trying to debate with you.
(At last some activity...)
And I really wonder why it would be too far off.
It is for you but are you a majority and no one told me ?
So you basically mean that a clan leader, because he formed a clan, cannot chose to do whatever he wants in his life...
And that if he does, all the ppl who embarked with him have to suffer, the more the better.
A kind of moral engagement where he promise to lead till his death... rl or gamely.. and screw everyone when he dies (Rly or gamely.. being burned out)
Strange notion of mutual respect and commitment.
Again, this is all your opinion. I, respectfully, disagree with it. However, to make such drastic changes to the current game mechanics, I feel the burden of proof is with the person saying the changes must be made. So far, I haven't seen any real compelling proof that a change must be made to the clan leadership system.
I do, however, feel that leaders should be given more flexibility about clan functions. I do not feel that the leader should be passed from one toon to another. That is my opinion.
Someone stated that if you disbanned, someone could ninja the clan name. That is extremely unlikely since you (and only you) know exactly when the name is actually available for reuse.
It took very long to read all the thread... and after being a bit confused with pro and con, i now can say i agree with Maline: Clan transfers shall not be implemented. As is intended now, clan is not a guild.
A nobleman back in the 1200 was not elected, he was born son of a nobleman. A clan leader is some way similar.
Also he spend his carisma, know-how and authority (but also his symphaty and kindness) to allow the clan to grow strong and give a fun experience to his members.
What at least can be made is to allow the clan leader to elect a "right arm", a trused one with enhanced grants in case he needs to be out a while (wacations, job, etc) but no more -and about this, there's much to talk about too... for ex, a siege without the castle lord sounds fool!-. A leader is the soul of a clan: change it and the clan will change as well... and probably the 90% of people will leave: they joined for and liked the one who was in lead before...
You know, I expect there wouldn't be such a high demand for a clan transfer mechanism if clan leaders were able to give more permissions (especially the ability to access the clan wh), and possibly the ability to start/end wars and sign up for sieges and the like. I'm sorry, but an entire clan should not be completely gimped if the clan leader needs to go out of town for a week.
My council members can start wars from their permissions list, however; they are not allowed to end them. If they would allow us to delegate clan wh, and castle manor responsibilities, I would be a happy camper.
is simply too far out to anybody to bother trying to debate with you.
Its simply to far out? Thats how some of the greatest and biggest clans/guilds on the internet functions. Its how almost all other MMORPGs function.
who obviously doesn't understand how muchs uch an option would bother many people not as leaders but also as members.
And you have yet to demonstrate how it would, its completely voluntary, so noone would lose anything. Any other issues are issues that are already in the game.
Yes there was. Someone disagreed with your OPINION. You lose. Also, I would've replied but it basically would've just been "I disagree with your opinion."
Lol SirE.
Really, do you think that
Hello? The name of the game is LINEAGE. What do you suppose that means?
One clan. One King.
is a validly formed argument with some premises and a conclusion who would infer that what I said was not valid ?
(If yes you can brush the poster aside just by saying every King has a heir or a successor of a form.)
No, every king does not have an heir or successor, hence the battle between competing claims to the throne.
The premise of Lineage is that you are making a blood oath to support or be supported in claiming leadership through battle.
That's what the word "lineage" refers to: a royal bloodline.
Almost every other MMORPG out there works without the composite of the grind, without the harsh death penalties, or without the completely open PvP.
Not being able to hit other players worked jolly well in RO - what would you say if I suggested it for L2 on that basis?
Also, if the system is voluntary for the leader, it won't be any good in the few cases where the arguement goes that there was no helping the need to transfer (i.e. the leader actually can't get to the game to sort things out, including a transfer).
No, every king does not have an heir or successor, hence the battle between competing claims to the throne.
Yes, but even then the entire structure and holding isn't dismantled for it to happen. Even Kings have the option of stepping down and letting an heir take over.
The premise of Lineage is that you are making a blood oath to support or be supported in claiming leadership through battle.
Uhm, yeah, the bloodoath which you can freely leave without even the slightest penalty besides a 5-7 day waiting period. So much for its value.
Almost every other MMORPG out there works without the composite of the grind, without the harsh death penalties, or without the completely open PvP.
There has been MMORPGs even more hardcore than L2 is. But all of that is irrelevant compared to that L2 has a very poor clan system, where other clans/guilds shines in organisation, devotion, persistancy, membersships, cross-server/cross-game. L2 clans shines in mediocrity for the large majority's part, heck most of the better ones are so only because they're supported by a structure outside of Lineage 2 (cross-game guilds) or because they cheat.
Also, if the system is voluntary for the leader, it won't be any good in the few cases where the arguement goes that there was no helping the need to transfer (i.e. the leader actually can't get to the game to sort things out, including a transfer).
There will always be rare rare cases where nothing helps. But that doesn't justify screwing everything else over.
Yet you want to be able to transfer leadership with even less penalty than this...
Actually in all my suggestions there was more penalty than this. And poor troll, since I actually agree with the current penalty for leaving the clan and I wasn't the one brining up this "blood pledge" as if it actually had meaning.
I don't think inter-game clans are a good thing, but that'll open a whole different can of worms, so let's not go there.
I believe the clan system in L2, which works very well for its intents and purposes, does not suit your style and you're trying to label it as bad - although I've done the same, labelling an alternative style that I'd feel would ruin a good thing in the game as bad, although it might work well elsewhere (as in elsewhere away from me and any clan I've been in).
<shrug> I'll agree to disagree. I don't get your point, you don't get mine.
Yet you want to be able to transfer leadership with even less penalty than this...
Actually in all my suggestions there was more penalty than this. And poor troll, since I actually agree with the current penalty for leaving the clan and I wasn't the one brining up this "blood pledge" as if it actually had meaning.
What penalty did you suggest, troll? All I remember is "Open clan tab, click "change leader".
Which is not at all harsher than being untagged 5/7 days IMHO, but then maybe that's just me.
Thats mostly just you. If you're already leaving a clan anyway. And btw, I did add a time penalty as well. Heck, further penalties wouldn't be bad either, but I already mentioned that to.
Currently you can change your clan with a swipe of your CC and a penalty of 1 death worth of XP....wow.
Which is not at all harsher than being untagged 5/7 days IMHO, but then maybe that's just me.
Thats mostly just you. If you're already leaving a clan anyway. And btw, I did add a time penalty as well. Heck, further penalties wouldn't be bad either, but I already mentioned that to.
Don't keep us in the dark. Actually type out your suggestions (if you really have some).
Currently you can change your clan with a swipe of your CC and a penalty of 1 death worth of XP....wow.
Odd, I've never needed a credit card to change clans...
How about can't have kicked member in last 10 days, must have full agreement from anyone (i.e. no inactive members), won't be able to kick member for another 10 days or something like that? Maybe longer.
But then, dissolving becomes easier than the transfer - probably not a bad thing.
Again, this is all your opinion. I, respectfully, disagree with it.
I love it when you state it like that.
However, to make such drastic changes to the current game mechanics, I feel the burden of proof is with the person saying the changes must be made. So far, I haven't seen any real compelling proof that a change must be made to the clan leadership system.
The proof is that for all the reasons mentioned earlier, the actual system is way too harsh on the clan members if the leader has to step down. All they accomplished goes poof for a reason that may have nothing to do with lack of commitment or responsability.
I remember a Prince from L1 (about same consequence even if princes are just pansies in panties with nothing for them but charisma) who in a week : divorced, lost his house, phone and computer.
His 120 ppl pledge had to dissolve. They had been active for 2 years and were very successfull. Way to get screwed by the system. You might consider it far fetched but it's not an urban legend.
I do, however, feel that leaders should be given more flexibility about clan functions. I do not feel that the leader should be passed from one toon to another. That is my opinion.
As good opinion as any other, but not very respectfull of the work and the people involved in a successfull clan making. One goes, all are screwed.
Someone stated that if you disbanned, someone could ninja the clan name. That is extremely unlikely since you (and only you) know exactly when the name is actually available for reuse.
I did (maybe others too, dunno).
And it has already been done. Remember that when you disband all your members suddenly appear untagged. /hint /hint Don't forget to logg off all your members and hide in a corner to disband.
If you hate your enemy enough, you'll click often enough to ninja it...
The snake bit its tail. But what I still don't know is why SirE you think it must be so hard tho. L2 is hardcore enough and still would be if clans were to be made longerlasting and transferrable (even only twice a year or so). Why do you feel he should not be able to pass the relay?
Except not. They're still their clan if they transfer leadership via dissolve, just another hardship in the way.
Should I be given free levels because RL is keeping me off the game? Ridiculous notion - so why free goodies for a clan?
Except yes !!! They lose their castle, their 150mils clan hall, and possibly their name ! Are you in such a low clan you never had any of those ? They're hard to get mind you. Spell after me : "All they accomplished goes poof"
And about the free levels it's a topic I'm working on. I'll post it right away since you mention it. But don't get distracted in this thread.
It's hard enough to push a clan out of a clan hall - the whole system is ******ed. I believe the loss of clan hall involved in the loss of a leader is one of the big reasons for forcing a clan to dissolve on leadership loss.
I semi-watch the politics on Devianne, and it seems that having to re-siege is a blow to the clan, but not as bad as losing all they accomplished - which would be their levels and members, not their in game holdings.
And it's not because the clan hall system is ******ed that a clan who managed to get one and keep one (ain't a small feat at all ! it's HARD to get, it's expensive to keep) has to lose it to that fatality of leaders not being a-temporals.
As I said you probably never owned one. You can't know. The factuality of having to lose your CH/castle to change the leader is a major reason while accounts are being transfered against the EULA.
Clan member levels ARE an achievement, and that's what I was refering to. Excuse the ambiguity.
And I don't have to have been in the situation to think it's a good thing - the clan hall system is messed up, and the more movement comes into it the better. Although of course, some fixes in regards to moving away from traditional clan halls (by nerfing their functionality and/or improving siegable ones) and towards siegable ones would be nice.
As said, fixing the Clan Hall system by just organising more movement is as stupid as letting it how it is now.
Far having used and Aden CH for a few months and enjoyed the buffs and ports while seeing how expensive it is I can tell you you don't know very much about owning a clan hall and how it is detrimental to lose it. Go get one and come back to us to talk about it after that.
Empathy on the CH/castle owners is evidently something you miss.
As said, fixing the Clan Hall system by just organising more movement is as stupid as letting it how it is now.
Far having used and Aden CH for a few months and enjoyed the buffs and ports while seeing how expensive it is I can tell you you don't know very much about owning a clan hall and how it is detrimental to lose it. Go get one and come back to us to talk about it after that.
Empathy on the CH/castle owners is evidently something you miss.
Without a clan hall, life would be terrible. We would have to recruit SE's, prophets, bishops and EE's. We would have to care who we pk'ed because there would be no easy place to run to. We might actually have to siege a castle to have some real estate. Screw all that, lets transfer leadership scerwing over any other clans greedily wanting a clan hall. This system really sucks huh?
FYI, the definition of LINEAGE has nothing to do with royal blood. (To whoever posted that) It is ancestry tracking.