You know at least 25 active people who would take auth/RH/LH positions but are currently overlooked? I find that very hard to believe to be honest. 

It is like people want to kill this game with the ideas they are giving. Sylveon being #1. I understand we want to see more activity from those in power. I get that by taking one of those positions you have more work than the rest of the members. Yet, again...punishing anyone right now would be a terrible idea. I agree with Chronos and this would be just a band aid. But implement such things or the even more ridiculous things some have mentioned that punish people will just make people flee quicker. 

I know Izzy does a lot for this game, he does his best to add fun events and fun things for us to do or gain. Even then people still enjoy bitching or rushing him. Yet, implementing things to punish the player base and the leaders would literally kill the game. 

I also want to know who these 25 people are. Please send them to me!

Also, I do find it a little ridiculous that people expect uppers to have 30+ hours aka almost a full-time job. When most of us already have full-time jobs, married, kids, etc. They are still able to do what uppers need to do without being on this game that often. I never did like when the activity started showing, because you can still lead and be an excellent upper without pouring hours into this place.

I do like the under 1 hour and lose the HQ, because it is ridiculous to go that low unless you're on a vacation/rl happens.

Just wanted to add that tid bit!

It needs to be a punishment if it is to accomplish anything.

I have seen in this thread several suggestions that revolve around rewarding more active crews which is fine and dandy but if the baseline is still 100% of what it is now and the only gain for an established, max gun, full BG leader is to earn more money and more wackstat they are not really going to care still. This means the solution either lies in punishment or recycling through leaders more often. 

Events are great, for those who know who I am you know I go very hard on events, but in all but the most historical long running events attendance is the same 10-15 people over and over again (for an example the Rattle event) 

When I was writing the suggestion I used some of my own experience and spoke with a few other people about the core of the problem. Which by my interpretation boils to this:

Inactive leadership leads to less committed players leads which leads to players leaving the game. 

So the angle to change keeping in mind events don't seem to be doing the trick, rewards don't seem to be doing the trick and everything sofar that has been tried has not done the trick is to try something new an essentially incentivise inactive crews dying off faster. 

Since obviously no one wants to tell their friend "hey your not cutting it retire/stepdown" and many don't want to willingly step down after all the work they put in to get there (again I dont blame them) this means the appropriate GAMEPLAY solution is a negative consequence for negative activity levels. Let the members of crews decide if their CL/CITY means enough to them to keep taking losses of income associated with having inactive leaders. Let other leaders of the city decide if keeping their friend authed despite playing 2 hours a week is worth getting shot quicker by members of their own city. let Crew leaders decide if its more important that their LHM be someone they have played with for 90% of their time in the game or someone else who is more active. 

And yall are right it may or may not be 25, it might be 15 it might be 40, what I do know is there is plnety of blood out there who would step up to fill in gaps. Just look at the last time we had container crews where the requirement was that the CL and all hands could not have been in position of power and we still had 6 crews (18 players) who both met that requirement and willingly took the spot. 

Container crews are protected by the gods. Please tell me who would still want to set up and put all the work in that can be shot? 

I have taken many upper management classes. Punishments/dictatorship do not motivate anyone anymore. Not when people can just as easily change to a new game that is more rewarding. 

Right so what would change about giving more rewards to people who are essentially already capped in the game accomplish? They can cap and then fuck off to go play those other games that are more "Rewarding" once they reach cap, which I feel many of our leadership currently do. 

So if we can't punish them, and we can't reward them what do we do? Do we just sit here with leaders who can't even meet a minimum of 10 hours a week for months at end while anyone who complains or shows the initiative to change things gets shot down before they have a crack at it? 

Do we speed gun building up more so that those with will power can kill the big guys even faster if they are willing to put the effort in?

Do we do nothing and just hope on the good will of the people on a game about power and control willingly ensure that the environment is healthy for new players, returning players and existing players and everyone is given their fair share of the power pie?

Or do we just accept that the game is going to die and just accept it and not try and do anything to go down kicking and screaming against the industry wide death of text based games? 

Lets not go catastrophizing now. Honestly, as Chronos said - games like these are a bit of a thing of the past. Sorry Izzy :( Most who are here have been here for a long time. Very few new people start playing. I feel most people currently go do what you mention. Most people on here I am fairly certain spend their time on other games. Which is why it is so easy for most to just leave and play them instead.

This topic is about punishing and rewarding based on Uppers. I do not need more bonuses as an Upper, but there for sure shouldn't be more downsides to being one otherwise no one will even want the job - except these select few you keep saying exist. When the game becomes stagnant there isn't much reason to be as active. So creating an incentive rather than a punishment would work better. A punishment would just make these uppers quit completely and play those games we are playing.

Give the rewards to the members more, that is fine by me. Maybe make it a perk of getting something that doesn't benefit their gun or bgs, make less about money and more about idk give hustle points (I know you can add that to wack, but its just an example). 

Maybe reward uppers who host events, who knows, we have creative people on here. I am sure someone can think of something fun. I am not saying lets do nothing and let it die, you're being overdramatic. I am just saying punishments are not the way to go. I don't go and play...uhhh...World of Warcraft (I know people play this) to not get gear and to not down bosses and have them take gear from me I already got or lower the gold I can get because I only play 5 hours a week instead of the 25 hours they'd love to see me play. That would just make me quit and everyone else too. 

Ill start by saying sorry if I come off doom sayery or combative. Thats not my point in posting any of this. As far as my suggestion goes it has already done its job of getting people talking, and getting people thinking, because if everyone is absolutely against my idea they will now be thinking up every possible solution to ensure it doesnt come to pass.

Let me tackle your second block a bit. I too would love to focus the rewards on the members more because as you said the uppers rarely actually need the extra prizes. But with that being the case, if the goal is to get the uppers to be active that means the uppers would have to be the source of the prizes and how many would simply just not become more active because they are not the ones benefiting from it? Sure it may get half of the normally inactive CLs to keep putting the effort in.

But the punishments would be around for that remaining 50% who despite extra rewards, extra bonuses extra everything for them and their members for their activity still dont desire to put the effort in. Now because of how this game plays someone who may have got 20-30-40 days of effort into their character and got made is socially trapped because Made+ cant freely switch crews. They dont quite yet have the gun to kill their CL to free them, and any shot they take would just lead to their character wiped out. So they have to hope that their CL whose maybe logging in 3 days a week see their request to move crews and agrees. Further making that crew dead and whatever remaining active players they left behind even more likely to fall through the cracks and go inactive. 

Or what the goal of the punishments I suggested being, we give an incentive and means to the whole city to tackle the problem of the inactive leader. The other uppers cant just brush it off freely because its their friend as they could equally be shot by that persons remaining members. The person who took the shot may still die but they were not as heavily invested as they would need to be now to take the shot AND their shot enacted the change they were looking for. 

As for your WoW example. In this case it wouldnt be the members doing the raid with their clan and not getting a reward because their leaders only play for raids but much more akin to you play with a clan, help the leader grind out their way to max gear assuming your day will come and then your leader goes "im set im going to go play somethign else" and stop hosting raids all together. 

Yall saw nothing

It still doesn't solve the issues at hand by punishing. People do not want to be leaders or hands. You seem to know people who do, so please direct them to showing interest. So people sit as a hand or CL to help out, rather than because they want to. Hence why I say rewards or incentives will do better.

As for the WoW, that is if you play with master loot on. Loot is now personal, much like the money we make in this game (as many CLs do not use taxes) and you can choose to donate or not, much like you can trade your loot to someone who may need it. Many guilds or clans fall apart because the leaders do grow tired of it and leave. Much like when we die we choose to take a break and not play. Or when things become stagnant, like you've been raiding that same raid for 3-4months, people start to quit or only log in to raid.

A game is something you engage with for enjoyment. There is a flawed view that those who make it to the summit of this game owe something to the rest of the users in terms of commitment regardless of their personal feelings, when their only goal as a player of a game should be to have fun. Of course, there are rules which are needed to ensure that the game remains viable whilst people are having their fun, but at the crux of it, a user playing their first minute or a dork like me playing their umpteenth, should be primarily concerned about getting enjoyment out of it and everything else should be secondary to that.

People have got to stop looking at raw activity levels in the multiple hours with a frowny face. Based on what Squishy posted earlier in this thread, the average CL/RH/LH is putting in 22 hours a week - on a game - which we know is cyclical, and we have people here advocating that punishments should follow for slipping below that threshold. You guys are out of your minds; this is an inordinate time commitment already. That is time physically logged in too, making no allowance for the WhatsApp and whatever else time people are spending actively managing some aspect of this game, which anyone will tell you is usually a round-the-clock commitment. 

Most activities have diminishing returns, even the most fun ones, if they didn't we would never graduate from the first activity we did which we enjoyed. It is impossible to make this game an exception to that, so there will always be an element of getting to the top being the culmination of the experience and there being an inevitable drop off in enjoyment and commitment as a result. 

You also need to qualify "activity". Activity in terms of physically being logged into the game is of little benefit to anyone if the person logged in is just as jaded or disinterested as before, which is all any punitive action will introduce. If I have to now log an extra 10 hours to keep something I deem worth keeping, which I didn't want to do but now feel like I've got to, what meaningful contribution am I going to make? Am I going to make it more fun for Gary Goomba or am I going to have this on my phone or in the background doing something else ignoring him; the very definition of doing the hours? 

And then, as you've already touched on, Sylveon, you would have to make the punishment severe enough to achieve the goal of forcing that disinterested person into investing the extra time in the first place. What does that look like? Something near game-breaking really, and if you're doing that, why should anyone bother at all just to have it coded away from them? 

There are numerous reasons why we are where we are. None of them will be solved by punishing the people who've invested the most time and effort into their accounts and are now choosing to put in less than before, or even worse the members of their crews.  

I can not believe someone with the name agsrgsghhg has managed to get so many people active in this forum. 

Feeeel really like this topic should be brought back to the top and the coversation restarted here. 

Definitely. I'll start with two questions which I'm still thinking about:

What can we do to make being a leader/RH/LH more appealing for people so that they actually want to take those positions at outset?

How can we make being a leader/RH/LH more enjoyable for people once they are in those positions so that they want to remain active?

If different people were in charge this would be getting very different replies from the very same people denigrating the idea.

My replies would be exactly the same as this is an issue whoever is in charge.

I think it is a good idea something like this. I like the idea that if you're active and you put a lot of work into it you get rewarded compared to those that don't etc

If different people were in charge this would be getting very different replies from the very same people denigrating the idea.

Disagree. Have people removed people for being IA, yea, that's true, but that is also when the game was more active in general and there were people to replace them. If that is what you're getting at, if not then I disagree 100%. But even if those in charge were different, punishing them to make them active wouldn't make them more active either lol, or maybe for the time being it would temporarily. Yet, it would definitely make people less inclined to want to be a hand or CL going forward. When that is already a struggle for any regime that would be in power. 

So once again, if we're opening this topic. You'll hear me speaking the same exact words. 

If different people were in charge this would be getting very different replies from the very same people denigrating the idea.

If different people were in charge, they would be disagreeing with this too. 

I've played with several different "regimes" in charge. ALL of them eventually reach a stagnant state and those who aren't in charge get butt hurt about it until a move is made. Then they take charge and do the SAME EXACT THING. 

I've been CL quite a few times and it's TIRING. I should not have to feel obligated to work 40+ hours IRL then work 40+ hours in a game as well. I would do my best to encourage activity, and only a select few actually care. Time outside of the game exists (discord, WA, etc.) I still remember times I would be up early in the AM for rogues or wars, and STILL have real life work hours later.

So no, not EVERYONE jumps for joy at being an upper. 15-40 people? I guarantee they're liars or they want to run the game so then they can be the next "lazy" regime.

PS: I'm not saying any current CLs are lazy, because we're all humans and have lives. I'm simply saying everyone has complaints about the upper's activity levels until it's them and their friends "running the game". Then it's okay to be lazy/inactive.

Only a guilty mind feels the need to defend itself against generalisations.

Only a guilty mind feels the need to defend itself against generalisations.

You're not that wise. Just because people take the time to correct someone or disagree with someone, doesn't mean they have a guilty mind. Some people ignore the ignorant, others take the time to show them where they are wrong and hope they learn from it.