An option for “Mutiny” or unanimous vote among council members and higher, to overthrow/replace a poor performing leader

[Big Romeeyo]

Request:
For BHGs to add an option for “mutiny” that allows any player of choice to challenge the leader in a 1:1 battle. The winner of that battle remains the leader, or is demoted and can be immediately kicked by the new leader, or spared to remain a member to continue participation or leave voluntarily. This option should become available for participation 1 week out of the year (mutiny week) and when a leader is challenged, he/she must answer the challenge. The leader can not kick a challenging member during mutiny week, only afterwards. If they choose not to answer the challenge, then when the week expires, a unanimous voting poll comes open to all members -council and higher- wether to keep the current leader in position, or to choose his challenger instead making he/she forfeit the crown.

Yes, it would be a risky move to challenge the leader because you put a target on your back If you’re unsuccessful, just like a real mutiny. And even if you’re successful, there’s no guarantee that the members will stay as members to follow their new “leadership.” And this would also make promotions to council or co-leader a much more cautious decision.

I think it pays to shake up the ant farm every now and then, by introducing new concepts and options, even ones that push the envelope like this. This would inspire more movement and change among senior alliances members. As it stands now, only newcomers and low age players are likely to change alliances, but the reality is, people are WAY more excited when that new “drone age or automation age“ guy joins the alliance.

Rationale:
Feels mutinous writing this (lol), but I’ve been a part of an alliance for nearly 5 years, and have risen to the rank of co-leader. However, I‘ve watched the alliance leader display rude and bullying behavior on many occasion, costing valuable long-term players to leave. He contributes very little towards strategy; offers zero participation in recruiting or soliciting new members; has a tremendously low lifetime donation count; has stood by purposefully to let myself and other co-leaders surpass him in XP, so that when included in wars, he’s no longer put in the first, second, or third in terms of striking order. He refuses to complete the Harriett Tubman Spy Tree, years after being encouraged and practically begged to do so - saying “it takes too much oil, time, and citizens to complete” - all while everyone else has completed it. Because he’s the ”leader” he can automatically spy on the mirrors of all members who have completed the Harriett Tubman spy tree, even though he has not - and says that’s good enough for him, yet he can rarely handle his own mirror and needs someone higher/stronger to do the job. And what has tipped the scales, is he’s now taking weeks and months off at a time, from playing. We are being matched up against really hard alliances and could use his help, but he’s MIA. We can’t lower the entry medal requirements to recruit ”sandbag” players (Iron Age, gun powder age, etc) to include in wars to offset the high match ups - we need him to lower the medal requirements but he can’t because he’s MIA.

I could go on and on, but bottom line, after years of this, it’s time for a change. Yes, I could just leave the alliance, but I’d leave all other members crippled. AND I’ve spent years -along with other good players - building this alliance into what it is today. With parliament, and other team-based ventures it‘s becoming harder and harder to walk away from alliances. But I’m nearly 400xp Automation Age and at the top of my class in terms of attacking and defense - thinking of just going mercenary.

thanks for reading

 

[King Crimson]

This is an interesting idea, if only for the medieval 'tone' of it all - and it would be a courageous leader who would be up for it. It would show the true mettle of the man, as it were.
It's a pity, as you said, that starting a new alliance would mean walking away from all you've achieved ...

 

[drwong]

We had a couple of members spin off into a new team, and because the chat is unfiltered (and in your case, possibly unmonitored), they were able to post the new team name there so dissatisfied members could transfer over there.

 

[Big Romeeyo]

We had a couple of members spin off into a new team, and because the chat is unfiltered (and in your case, possibly unmonitored), they were able to post the new team name there so dissatisfied members could transfer over there.

Not a bad idea, except you can’t take parliament gains with you -gotta start over from scratch. Same for the overall alliance level; you start back over as a level 1 alliance.

 

[Husher]

I agree with the ability to impeach or oust the leader. But I believe there should be a terms limit option set up in an alliance. A feature that can be checked like the war option. Then set up how long a leader can be in place. Then have a normal voting process. This with the impeaching could be a unique feature overall.

 

[Seek]

Way I view idea of stealing an alliance of a Leader that started it is just that theft.

Leader He or She started alliance if you don’t like their leadership or just their name or whatever reason you want to tell yourself or others does not justify stealing someone’s else alliance they started. Even if they added a feature to vote them out the vote could be fixed by multi account etc. There no way for BHG to allow this without causing issues for themselves.

Think of like this if I own a construction company if you don’t like my leaderships or way I talk to you, this does not give you right to steal my company. You would have to buy it or quit. Simple it’s not your property.

If you don’t like leadership or lack of, leave the alliance. Do not steal that alliance just leave.

Should not be allowed. It is stealing.

 

[nobodyknowsthetrouble]

この投稿は取り下げられました

 

[theBobNamedDan]

I still like the idea of auto-kicking someone who is inactive for 90 days. This would remove inactive leaders and promote the most senior co-leader… or something like that. It would also eliminate the junk alliances that have only 1 person in them and clog up searches for a new alliance.

But stealing an alliance from someone who is active is wrong. No mutiny vote from me.

 

[Seek]

Totally cool with the 90 days even 60 days. Every good leader is on everyday or has someone takeover. Would simpler no leader logon 45 days alliance is deleted. But they will be nicer than that lol

But no stealing of leaders alliance should ever be allowed by vote.

 

[Husher]

Way I view idea of stealing an alliance of a Leader that started it is just that theft.

Leader He or She started alliance if you don’t like their leadership or just their name or whatever reason you want to tell yourself or others does not justify stealing someone’s else alliance they started. Even if they added a feature to vote them out the vote could be fixed by multi account etc. There no way for BHG to allow this without causing issues for themselves.

Think of like this if I own a construction company if you don’t like my leaderships or way I talk to you, this does not give you right to steal my company. You would have to buy it or quit. Simple it’s not your property.

If you don’t like leadership or lack of, leave the alliance. Do not steal that alliance just leave.

Should not be allowed. It is stealing.

That’s an example. But a very broad one. Investing in a company is far different than time spent in game with others. It’s a novel idea overall. Unfortunately, there really aren’t to many good options other than to leave and join an alliance that shares your values. Games are set up to be entertaining. I left what I believed to be a dying alliance, I then joined the Holy Grail. A few years in they assigned me as the Leader. I did that for a few years, then I assigned a different person. They held it for a few years and then gave it back to me. I asked the group to vote. So I have the role until it’s not a good fit. But, if I’m doing a bad job, I would hope they would tell me.

 

[Seek]

That’s an example. But a very broad one. Investing in a company is far different than time spent in game with others. It’s a novel idea overall. Unfortunately, there really aren’t to many good options other than to leave and join an alliance that shares your values. Games are set up to be entertaining. I left what I believed to be a dying alliance, I then joined the Holy Grail. A few years in they assigned me as the Leader. I did that for a few years, then I assigned a different person. They held it for a few years and then gave it back to me. I asked the group to vote. So I have the role until it’s not a good fit. But, if I’m doing a bad job, I would hope they would tell me.

That might have worked for you and alliance. But I see things from what could happen in worst case. Example below

Player joins group
Player brings in multi accounts does not tell anyone.
Vote is brought to remove leader the player now uses multi account as extra votes.
Player takes over alliance Kicks Everyone and Deletes Alliance
player repeats this in next alliance and so fourth.
Mean while the leader that started the alliance quiets game and few other players over the drama.

I know it sounds wild but thing like this would happen if this allowed. So replace leader if no login but other than that leaves too many ways for drama and players leaving game.

 

[Husher]

That’s a great point. You are spot on.

 

[Big Romeeyo]

Well..I think it’s time to shake things up a bit. The act of “mutiny” is not make-believe; it’s a very real-world scenario and would be a fun feature in the game. Perhaps, when a “mutiny challenge” is proposed, a leader can respond in either a “1 on 1“ battle against the challenge, or counter the proposal with a “3 on 3 battle” called a Civil War. In the Civil War scenario, the leader can allow any of his alliance members to join arms - preferably his top two co-leaders or council members. And the challenger can allow any two alliance members to join arms with them. Note that people may choose NOT to stand behind a leader or a challenger - in this case they would be on their own to overthrow. But bottom line, a coup d’état happens in many nations and this is DOMINATIONS. This is also my post and if you don’t like it, you can just leave (lol j/k)

 

[WileCoyote]

I do agree with many others that alliances shouldn't be stolen. Perhaps an option to turn it on/off. Although, nothing stops this from happening voluntarily right now. I can simply type a challenge into my alliance. Making this a formal part of the game is quite a stretch.



I'm worried for a digital age player that built up a nice friendly lvl10 alliance over 3 years would get wrecked by an auto age player. If we were to pursue this idea, then an age restriction on alliance perk level should be considered.

/

 

[Seek]

I do agree with many others that alliances shouldn't be stolen. Perhaps an option to turn it on/off. Although, nothing stops this from happening voluntarily right now. I can simply type a challenge into my alliance. Making this a formal part of the game is quite a stretch.



I'm worried for a digital age player that built up a nice friendly lvl10 alliance over 3 years would get wrecked by an auto age player. If we were to pursue this idea, then an age restriction on alliance perk level should be considered.

/

Again too much work too much drama this would cause.