When voting on new members in alliances, 50%+1 of the members must agree to accept a new member. Unfortunately, it is a reality that some members are often offline for weeks, especially in the long-term game worlds. This makes it harder to reach this quorum. Would it be conceivable that only those members are considered, who were logged in e.g. in the last 4 weeks at all times? In my opinion, this would defuse the blockade by being absent.
Regards Martin
Another issue is that some players have loads of airlines within an alliance while others only have 1. This makes it even more vital for that member to vote. It also really takes away any democratic aspect of alliances if 80% of the vote is in 2 members. Voting in an alliance should be per player not per airline. But as we both know nothing will happen.
Then the alliance should have some rule about being an active member, and kick out those that are not....
Then the alliance should have some rule about being an active member, and kick out those that are not....
That's not an alliance I would want to be part of.
Indeed, one player having a dozen subsidiaries all voting at once really skews the voting process. And though some alliances may have a rule about only one vote per player, it's based on an honour system as there's currently no in-game way to enforce this.
I was in an alliance where the application was posted for discussion. If any member had issues with the applicant, all were addressed before the voting process. So all member airlines would vote positive. But it is only possible if members are active.
I was in an alliance where the application was posted for discussion. If any member had issues with the applicant, all were addressed before the voting process. So all member airlines would vote positive. But it is only possible if members are active.
Yes, but nothing in game stops people from ignoring the discussion and voting whatever they damn well please. And if one person has 10 subsidiaries in the alliance, that makes a huge difference. Yes, we're all aware that alliances can have different internal rules, but the point is the voting system in game is skewed. We shouldn't have to rely on out-of-game honour systems to fix problems in the game.
And if you have 2 people with 10 subsidiaries each who haven't logged in for weeks, good luck getting any vote to pass through.
Why would you want to be in an alliance with people you don’t trust?
Sigh. I give up trying to explain it.
The issue here is game mechanics, it doesn't matter if we trust people 100% or not, we shouldn't have to resort to outside means to fix what should be in the game mechanics themselves. How is that hard to understand?
No matter how much I may trust my neighbours, I'd still want the lock on my door to function properly, because that's what it's there for. But apparently if I complain the lock isn't functioning properly, your answer is simply "why would you want to be in a neighborhood with people you don't trust?"
Sigh. I give up trying to explain it.
The issue here is game mechanics, it doesn’t matter if we trust people 100% or not, we shouldn’t have to resort to outside means to fix what should be in the game mechanics themselves. How is that hard to understand?
No matter how much I may trust my neighbours, I’d still want the lock on my door to function properly, because that’s what it’s there for. But apparently if I complain the lock isn’t functioning properly, your answer is simply “why would you want to be in a neighborhood with people you don’t trust?”
Another issue is that some players have loads of airlines within an alliance while others only have 1. This makes it even more vital for that member to vote. It also really takes away any democratic aspect of alliances if 80% of the vote is in 2 members. Voting in an alliance should be per player not per airline. But as we both know nothing will happen.
Well, on the other hand, an active member with subsidiaries in the alliance makes it easier to reach the quorum.
With a time rule, all of a player’s companies would be considered active or inactive. An active player who also votes with all subsidiaries makes voting easier, and an inactive player would not be counted.