Disband ALL inactive Societies

[True Juan]

Hi guys,

I think the title says it all. I think 90% of societies out there are DEAD. Making the game look dead.

Not sure what I would base it on exactly. Maybe 3 avatars must have logged into the game in the last year for a soc to stay alive. (Or at least 1 or something).

What do you think?

Regards,
True

 

[Rumsponge]

If players don’t log in, aren’t their accounts deleted?
If all of the players in a soc are deleted, wouldn’t the soc be disbanded already?

 

[mastermesh]

If players don’t log in, aren’t their accounts deleted?
If all of the players in a soc are deleted, wouldn’t the soc be disbanded already?

nope.

Some long gone avatar's socieites are still there. It also still lists founder avatars even if that avatar is deleted due to not being in game for so many months or what not (or kicked out/locked out by Mindark, etc.)

 

[Granny Rowan]

Not sure most new players would have any idea if a soc was active or not, and so am not entirely sure it makes the game look dead. But any overhead (soc lists, soc terminal entries etc) is something that eats resources. So it should be in MAs interest to do some housekeeping. Ideally with those soc names then locked so people cant claim a heritage they have not earned by re-using a known soc name from the past

Removing people from chat membership lists, who were once invited but never bothered to accept after say one month would be another great tidy up

 

[Rumsponge]

Not sure most new players would have any idea if a soc was active or not, and so am not entirely sure it makes the game look dead. But any overhead (soc lists, soc terminal entries etc) is something that eats resources. So it should be in MAs interest to do some housekeeping. Ideally with those soc names then locked so people cant claim a heritage they have not earned by re-using a known soc name from the past

A few pennies worth of bandwidth/storage, if that, vs. thousands of dollars worth of developer/tester costs.

The easy fix is to leave the socs alone and just stop displaying them, but it is still some amount of work.

 

[Rumsponge]

nope.

Some long gone avatar's socieites are still there. It also still lists founder avatars even if that avatar is deleted due to not being in game for so many months or what not (or kicked out/locked out by Mindark, etc.)

If you are in a soc where the leader stopped playing, the only way to replace them is through filing a support case. Maybe some of the soc members still login and just haven’t bothered to have them removed.

I’m still in GA. I‘d have to check, but I believe that our ”leader” is still someone who never logs in anymore. As far as I’m concerned, that‘s the ideal quality I’m looking for in a soc leader.

 

[JohnCapital]

If you are in a soc where the leader stopped playing, the only way to replace them is through filing a support case.

Just elect a new leader?

 

[Rumsponge]

Just elect a new leader?

Unless it has changed, you can’t. As I remember it, the leader actually needs to call for an election. It’s been a while since I needed to deal with this, though.

 

[Katie Chalmers]

Our Society recently had a leadership change. From what we worked out, a new leader can be voted in without any input from the current leader, however the new candidate must win a majority vote. Te new leader is elected after holding this majority for 24 hours. I imagine this is hard when dealing with a high proportion of inactive users. We got around this problem by having our current leader give himself an “unelectable” status, then leadership will get applied to the next highest voted candidate (not the majority vote). Of course he needed to be active and lucid to un-elect himself.

 

[RickEngland]

If 90% of the socs are inactive and that generates a perception of making the game look dead, then how does removing them make the remaining 10% look positively roaring with activity? Hahaha.

Why would players fear retired avatars anyway, isn't there enough new skilling opportunities to outclass any soc if yiu wanted too.

Another thing to bear in mind is that generally retired players "will" login now and then to protect their account.

I've know a few players locked and cleaned due to inactivity, to never touch the game again, when they login to find MA has zero'd them. I would suggest that makes MA's retention issues even worse.

Why does the player base constantly call for more risks and restrictions to their "fellow" players accounts in various forms of deletion? These players have spent good money on their digital assets.

It's like banks stealing the contents of some old ladies bank account, because she's not used the cash machine for a year. Come on folks.

If you call for MA to delete players more and more, they will. That doesnt bode well for your accounts either at some point in life.

Rick.

 

[Rumsponge]

Our Society recently had a leadership change. From what we worked out, a new leader can be voted in without any input from the current leader, however the new candidate must win a majority vote. Te new leader is elected after holding this majority for 24 hours. I imagine this is hard when dealing with a high proportion of inactive users. We got around this problem by having our current leader give himself an “unelectable” status, then leadership will get applied to the next highest voted candidate (not the majority vote). Of course he needed to be active and lucid to un-elect himself.

But doesn’t the leader have to trigger the election? Socs aren’t constantly in an election, are they?

 

[Katie Chalmers]

But doesn’t the leader have to trigger the election? Socs aren’t constantly in an election, are they?

All new joining members are given a default alliance to the current soc leader. But if another member converts 50% of the votes, then that member will become leader after holding that for 24 hours. A type of mutiny, as you will.
So yes a soc leader can have his soc taken from under him.
If you wish to protect your rank, make sure you keep on your dead/inactive members, they have your vote..

 

[Toprez]

Why are you interested in dead socs to begin with?

 

[MARSHMALLOW]

I Have No Idea What Society Stand For These Days

 

[mastermesh]

I Have No Idea What Society Stand For These Days

with the global chat system now in place, not nearly what it used to.

 

[San]

Not sure what I would base it on exactly. Maybe 3 avatars must have logged into the game in the last year for a soc to stay alive. (Or at least 1 or something).

Zero. Only after the last member's account is deleted due to inactivity, a society can be deleted. Is this not so already? Are there societies listed with zero members? I find this not important enough to check, but would be very disappointed if any other threshold of activity was required just to keep up the registry.

 

[NevadaJake]

It would be nice to free up some of the old society names if they are truly inactive.

 

[Spawn]

My old society "Odysseus Unbound" is dead because her leader died in real life. The society is still in the list, and she will forever be the leader of the society. It's our last honor to her. She also has a statue at the tp of the three BIG landareas. (ola 42)
That's why I voted no.

 

[unufain8]

If players don’t log in, aren’t their accounts deleted?
If all of the players in a soc are deleted, wouldn’t the soc be disbanded already?

No their account are not deleted. And soc's arent disbanned.

 

[True Juan]

So far I only see 1 alright explanation of a NO. Otherwise no good reasons having a game of DEAD SOCIETIES. Can someone give a good explation of their NO?

From so many NOs I see I believe MA is right. Why should they care about the game. People will vote for it to stay shit anyways
(Yes, I believe these details are making this game crap. Like dead apartments, dead booths, shops - so much dead stuff. Sometimes it feels like a human body where only the heart and brain kind of works, but every other organ and body parts are just completely dead - Whats even worse, people like it that way ).

 

[Bregi]

So far I only see 1 alright explanation of a NO. Otherwise no good reasons having a game of DEAD SOCIETIES. Can someone give a good explation of their NO?

From so many NOs I see I believe MA is right. Why should they care about the game. People will vote for it to stay shit anyways
(Yes, I believe these details are making this game crap. Like dead apartments, dead booths, shops - so much dead stuff. Sometimes it feels like a human body where only the heart and brain kind of works, but every other organ and body parts are just completely dead - Whats even worse, people like it that way ).

It's better to see it as a landscape and not a human body. You might find a small segment on an old wall outdoors. The purpose and usefullness of those stones are long gone. It's overgrown with vines and moss. Stones have broken off and birds nest in the cracks. But it's a remnant of the past, and window to the great castle that is once was. And the the sappling that grows there since the spring will one day overarch that broken wall. And that tree will be the home for other insect and other birds. Untill that tree lies fallen at the base of that small piece of wall.
Yes, I do like to see those old segments of a wall from the past and old grawned trees lying death in the forest.

I haven't formed an opinion what to do with dead/inactive societies yet though, apart from the part above.

 

[Rumsponge]

No their account are not deleted. And soc's arent disbanned.

So, MA doesn’t liquidate old accounts? Doesn’t the ToU say that they will delete our account and send you the TT value after a certain period of inactivity?

 

[Aloisius]

So, I noticed you said "Making the game look dead." I don't know how you could make a zombie game look more dead. Nothing against zombies BTW.

 

[Granny Rowan]

Ok so now I am curious, if so many of you think the game looks and feels dead, why do you still play ?
Someone is paying for all those HOFs and Globals, even considerable size ATHs lately, and you can be sure it isn't MA, so there must be players aplenty despite your pessimism.

 

[Bregi]

So, I checked on the first three societies I was in. Starting with Peachy, Inc. from over 15 years formed by the group of sweaters that I was part of too.

No suprise that none of those players come up on EntropiaTracker (not a fool prove measurement, but more then accurate enough to know if a soc is death or not, imo).
We left with a stupid scandal over Peachy to form Slaves to the Machine.

At least we were so good as to disband this one after some infighting or something (I can't remember).
After Slaves to the Machine was disbanded I formed Seven Lives with some of the ex-members of that soc.

Those two can't be found on EntropiaTracker either. Totally shocking, I know.

I'm torn between MA disbanding them all, because right now others can't form a society called "Peachy, Inc." or "Seven Lives" if they wish too. But I also understand the honor of "Odysseus Unbound" to their death leader. And then there's the issue of reputation. You may remember players from any of these socs, and so a newly formed soc with the same name could take advantage of that reputation.

Possible solution: any player can file a support case asking for an old society to be disbanded. That player can be an ex-member of that soc or someone who wants to create a new soc with the same name. You pay MA a fee and then they check the activity of it's member. If any member has logged in more then 4 times in the past 12 month the case is dismissed. If none of the members aren't even that active, MA sends them a message/mail that their soc will be disbanded in 30 days, unless to log on to prevent it.
If you, as an ex-member wants your old soc to remain as a honor you pay the same fee asking MA never to disband it.
The fee could be something like 50-100 PED, maybe?
Top 100 socs have to be inactive longer before they get disbanded, for example 3 years and a 3 month period in wich to react.

(I probably thing way too much about this right now).

 

[Geo]

I like the History. They should stay.

 

[True Juan]

Seems like people enjoy DEAD parts of the game more

 

[Granny Rowan]

A simple solution could be that dead socs are moved to a separate archival register list which shows a one line entry. All other info remains hidden.

Name of Society

Creation Date

Founder

Last known Leader

Last known activity(date)

Should a member wish to re-activate their previous membership can easily be checked by MA, who can then allow name to be re-used, but the soc cleansed of all the avatars that are not active in the past year. A small fee could be charged for this work
The same rule should then apply as for a new soc, in that they must have more than one member within a week or re-activation.
In all other cases the soc name in its original form cannot be re-used.
Thus old members can regain use of the name but it cannot be re-used by others that may seek to use the rep built by others.

Meanwhile the main soc list will only show active socs, so new members trying to apply will not be wasting time looking at socs that are dead.
The list of ex-socs does not signify death of the game, it may indeed just show how the game has evolved, take a look at your local shopping mall or high street, the shops there now are doubtless very different from those from 5 years ago, let alone 30 years or 100 years. Yet the mall or shopping street still thrives. The list would just be of historic interest

 

[wizz]

So far I only see 1 alright explanation of a NO. Otherwise no good reasons having a game of DEAD SOCIETIES. Can someone give a good explation of their NO?

From so many NOs I see I believe MA is right. Why should they care about the game. People will vote for it to stay shit anyways
(Yes, I believe these details are making this game crap. Like dead apartments, dead booths, shops - so much dead stuff. Sometimes it feels like a human body where only the heart and brain kind of works, but every other organ and body parts are just completely dead - Whats even worse, people like it that way ).

I would vote No.

Why even bother?
Why let MA waste time on this while there are so many more urgent matters to look into.

And remember, as soon as MA starts "fixing" this, you can bet your account on it that they will brake something good in the process. So, No, just leave it.

Is that an acceptable good reason?

 

[Orion]

Sadly MA will ignore your initiative for the same reason as they claim to have millions of PARTICIPANTS (note MA doesn't say players or even ACTIVE players!):

To bloat the very small number of active players and the even smaller number of the paying 1000-3000 players.