Force replace leader

[radicaldreamer]

I have been in this situation a lot lately, where the leader of a party goes afk for a long period, and then the party has to disband and reform to be able to invite new members. I think there should be a command like this: "/ptcmd mutiny [charactername]"
The specifier "charactername" would be the character to replace the current leader.

How it would work, is if two or more members type the same mutiny command, or choose the mutiny option in party menu and choose the same replacement, then that person is assigned as the new leader.

[Toadie-Odie]

Or it could work with the existing in-game nominate function. I know that exists but I can't think of anything that I would use it for other than maybe this. It would require a majority vote to process through, but if the leader really is a problem I can't see not being able to get that majority required.

[Mayoyama]

I think mutiny would be too harsh a wrod to use (and people would take it personally lol... you know they would...)

I think toadie's idea is closer on the mark.. with a vote system (but that doesnt work either if more than one person afk in pt...)

[Toadie-Odie]

That's a good point I hadn't thought about that. Maybe it could be just set up to require the majority of the party/alliance to vote and then in order to force boot a leader the majority of the votes made need to be "yes" with a time limit before the voting box closes?

[Glamdring]

as a player who has only AFK'd 3 times in 10 years without notice, and NEVER as a leader I'm ok with the term mutiny. if a player can't be botherred to do their job why should the rest of you have to worry about hurting his feelings? he's already a self-proclaimed lazy asshat, merely acknowledging it doesn't seem in the least harsh to me

[Toadie-Odie]

I agree with you and I would also point out it won't matter what term you use, people will take it personally. They take it personally even now when you break and remake a party.

When it comes to team play it is all about what is best for the group as a whole, not about what is best for one person.

[Behemothx]

I can see that going well with a kclub in the pool :P

[Toadie-Odie]

Oh god that would suck. ; ; No matter what system you have in place there will always be someone out there that will use it to screw people over sadly.

[Sarick]

I can see that going well with a kclub in the pool :P

Not necessarily, If the pool is an issue the function can be set to clear the pool before switching leader. Obviously, if is someone wants to be a jerk they can break the alliance/party or kick others. If they aren't afk they would see the message anyway. Stilll all it would do is switch out the leader not change lots.

[TMG]

At the very least, would it be possible for the alliance leader to be able to transfer leadership of another party in the alliance to someone else? I've had too many instances in my VW groups where another party leader decides they're not doing anymore runs with us and AFK's without disbanding while I'm trying to refill the empty slots to do another round. I'd like to have the ability to give leader to someone else in their party that isn't AFK so I can continue filling the alliance up and give them a chance to return before we're ready to go. There's also instances where people head back out to camp while I'm shouting, their party leader DC's and leader falls to the person that's already at camp, who is taking a 10-15 minute lunch break while I shout. Perhaps a command like /acmd leader p2 <name> would assign leader of the second (middle) party on the leader's screen to their person of choice, with p3 being used for the top party. Alliance leaders are able to pass their leader status to other party leaders already, so I don't see why they can't change leaders within other parties as well.

[Rosalie]

Actually, I like the alliance leader idea. Could make it something like /acmd assign Totallyhereguy since party leaders in alliances have no sway over the pool.

[Psxpert2011]

Lol, would be a good joke but too much work on the DEV team which is unnecessary to cope with. Though replacing the party leader works IRL, it would get just as out of hand ingame...

Dudes/ duddets, just come to an agreement with your fellow party members and reform party! Leader afks too much, he shouldn't be leader. Eventually if he comes back and still remembers anyones names, he'll ask to return to party.

I don't believe this MMO needs to be more convoluted than it is, the community only needs more communication.

[Ryce]

I like where this idea is going. Not that it's a HUGE issue, but can get really annoying when dealing with an alliance of people. When you throw level sync into the mix, it can become a significant time sink.

What about a "Request Leader" function? You hit the command and the current leader gets a system message (like a party invite). They can accept the request or deny it immediately (safeguard for item stealing). If no action is taken for 30 seconds, the request is automatically accepted.

I think this is better than the alliance route. It's useful in more instances (when you're not in an alliance, for example), doesn't give new "power" to the alliance leader over party leaders, and still protects the treasure pool.

[Glamdring]

one other option, we already have quartermaster, although it's never used. the change leader command automatically triggers the new leader as quartermaster, he can either turn it back to random, distribute the pool, or boot the AFK leader and then put back to random. there will still be whining (when isn't there?) but it's as fair as I know how with existing mechanics.

[Toadie-Odie]

I like where this idea is going. Not that it's a HUGE issue, but can get really annoying when dealing with an alliance of people. When you throw level sync into the mix, it can become a significant time sink.

What about a "Request Leader" function? You hit the command and the current leader gets a system message (like a party invite). They can accept the request or deny it immediately (safeguard for item stealing). If no action is taken for 30 seconds, the request is automatically accepted.

I think this is better than the alliance route. It's useful in more instances (when you're not in an alliance, for example), doesn't give new "power" to the alliance leader over party leaders, and still protects the treasure pool.

I really like this idea since it allows for a broader scope of functionallity. The amount of wait time could be made a tad longer. I can see things potentially getting nasty quick if the flag went up in the middle of combat.

Edit: meaning that in the heat of battle the leader might not have time to see it and respond with only 30 seconds.