This is idea that some players won't like, but I think it would be good for the whole game. Idea came to the mind after watching situation with the leaders of some cabals, as well as watching how some leaders are burning out and stopping playing when things go bad in their cabal.

Syntax: resposibility

This command shows you how much required for the leadership time did you play in this month and how much time you must play yet to keep position of the leader. Each leader, to hold his leader's position, must play minimal amount of time - at 60 hours per month.

If required time is not played, leader will be automatically removed, opening place for those who is ready for responsibility of a cabal leader.

-------------

<67%hp 100%m 100%mv 1489tnl outdoor wilderness 1 PM waning>respons

RESPONSIBILITY
In this month, you have played 37 hours 43 minutes. To keep your position, you should play 22 hours and 17 minutes more.


--------------

Hours can be different for each cabal and for each position (lower positions can have less time requirements).

Why it would be good - because some cabals won't die for 6-10 months if leaders are burned out. PLayers would know, that if their leader is gone or not active, they will have a perfect chance to take position.

Leaders will be motivated to play if they want to keep position.

Yes, some could say: "It's not the work, we are here to play the game!" - but when you are leader of the cabal, you are not playing single player game. There are players who rely on you and expect you to lead them, participate in politics and make the game interesting.

At the same time, it will (at least partially) solve situations, when leader of the cabal took position and playing his alternative character, when things in his cabal go bad (and I know for sure there are a lot of players who plays like this).

Why not use imm decision for demoting the old, potentially deadbeat one? Humans can handle things like this better than machines.

> Leaders will be motivated to play if they want to keep position.

I would be stressed to play more. Almost like having a boss behind your heels waiting for you to give him a reason to fire you. Doesn't sound like fun at all.

> Yes, some could say: "It's not the work, we are here to play the game!" - but when you are leader of the cabal, you are not playing single player game. There are players who rely on you and expect you to lead them, participate in politics and make the game interesting.

Ofcourse, that's why with my own leaders, I accepted the position only because I knew I had the time to make a decent effort for it. I know I am not alone in that. IMMs monitor this fairly closely too.

Basically, I don't believe this is as much of a problem as it is often perceived. Players who see their hours drop either step down or are made to step down (usually becoming Cabal Elders) ... or auto-delete, for whatever RL reason (sad, but happens).

I don't think something like this is going to solve much unless the bar for cabal leadership is lowered.

Cabal IMMs are already privy to how many hours per month their leaders are playing and whether or not those leaders are playing alts (either directly or by asking a higher level Immortal). The real problem is that nine times out of ten, there is nobody who happens to also be qualified for the leader spot (and of course plays a lot) to swap out for.

Just out of curiosity, would you have the Immortals take the time to set these limits per cabal? Some cabals really don't -need- a super active leader, nor would their numbers likely support many leader-material characters. Likewise, if (for example only) one Fort leader were very active and the other not, -but- applicants aren't having a difficult time getting in, should we still punish an otherwise perfectly solid leader for something that's not actually an issue at the moment? Should Empire leaders be held to the same standards when far fewer members of the cabal actually suffer from their absence? Lastly, should we actually boot an amazing leader for being 16 minutes short this month? Where do you draw the line?

1. Yes. I belive immortals should set this time, probably after discussing it here.

I do not believe in concept "some cabals do not need active leaders". Those cabals sucking big deal (now too) only because their leaers are not active/low active characters.

Cabals are directly depend on the leader. Active leader = active cabal. Active cabal = politics and war, = fun. Not active leaders = no politics, no fights, no fun.

2. Rules are rules. If it is required to spend X hours per week (per week is sbetter than per month), no matter how active other leaders are. You have yours responsibility, and if you are not ready for it, someone else will gladely take your place.

3. Not active "perfectly silid leader" is not a leader. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

4. Epire leaders - yes, should.

5. Imho - yes, you should de-leader him if he failed his duty. Not kick out of the cabal, but free him from his duty for sure.

--------

Side idea for cabals with many leaders: they can have "shared responsibilities". If they fail it, all of them will be de-leadered.

If they success, but one of them played 40% of the total time (or less), this one is de-leadered. This percentage is not fixed - the more leaderss in cabal, the lower % would be.

For example, if you take empire: emperor - 30% of total time, councilors - 20%. The result will be an interesting internal competition between leaders.

I don't think you realize how much additional Immortal time a system like this would tie up, among other things.

You talk about fun, but I don't see the fun in a system like this. Imagine, for example: I bust my ass as a cabal leader, doing things like adjusting my play times to deal talk to applicants and otherwise putting my somewhat limited play time into doing my duty instead of things that are more fun. I'm happy to do this, by the way. Now I automatically lose my leader spot because I only played 55 hours this month instead of 60. So now my cabal may or may not have anyone to take my place that has proven they are ready and willing to do the job I was doing well, even though I was around for more than 2 hours EVERY SINGLE DAY on average. All of a sudden the cabal is in worse shape than it was, all while poor little Baerinika paladin can't get empowered because she's too busy figuring out how many hours is appropriate for her cabal this month and/or who should replace me now that I've been automatically removed from my leader spot.

(There are literally a dozen or more scenarios like this that your system makes unfair/unfun for the leaders, the Immortals, and in many cases everyone.)

C'mon.

Write the cabal leader a note. If that doesn't work, email a cabal IMM and explain that you're genuinely having trouble getting in.

is that people can be logged on a lot and still a poor leader. Stealth classes, for example, do less "leading" than visible ones, as a general rule. Likewise shifters to an extent.

And then there's just the general potential for someone to log on and just play without doing any leading.

Also, you would get more of a pendulum swing, because you'd see at least 3 empire leaders rolling around a lot more.

Let's say I'm going on holiday for a couple of weeks... and I'm expected to play a MINIMUM of 60 hours in the remaining 16 days of the month? An average of just under 4 hours a day? That's like a recipe for losing your partner, friends, and it hampers your other hobbies.

Also, sometimes you need to reduce your leader time because you get burnt out on applicants with a sense of entitlement. Like the dudes that delete a character and come right up with the next one, then wonder why using identical spiel doesn't get them right back into the cabal.

> Stealth classes, for example, do less "leading" than visible ones, as a general rule.

Seeing as I'm often accused of this, and not necessarily wrongly, I suggest the following in my defense:

A leader that:

1. Boots those that need booting,
2. Inducts those that need inducting,
3. Promotes those who need promoting, and
4. Doesn't act like an idiot or a jack-ass,

is usually preferable to one that does more "visible leading" and yet drops the ball in one of those areas.

That way if a leader keeps his position, people knows he's not deadbeat.

I like it! +1

...and still be a ####ty leader, right?

I don't like any idea that makes you play MORE. This game is like crack. PURPLE crack.

>...and still be a ####ty leader, right?

That's why I don't like this idea. There's some correlation between "plays a lot" and "good leader" but if we implemented this idea, the effect is that probably there'd be like 6 cabal leaders spread among all the cabals.

I'm not leadering a guy who shouldn't be leader just because he plays the most. Not everybody can put in the hours of a Raegahn or a Eachainn but that doesn't mean they aren't still the best pick at the time.

Hell, I got leadered in nexus by default, because the vote is what it is.

By the time I got exiled I was in my third or fourth month and I was so very done with being a leader, because it's all I ever did when I logged in. I would talk to apps, guide the cabal and have to listen to anyone who had anything to say about myself or other cabal members. It essentially begins to detract from actually playing and while you don't want to let your cabal down, at the same time, you just get burned out from it because it becomes more like a job than fun.

At some point, a leader needs breaks from it. I think those that play less tend to be better leaders, have better interactions and are generally overall better because they won't burn out as quickly.

A good leader who is not frequently around is ten times better than an assbag leader who is around constantly. The latter IS why people stop playing a cabal more so I would say, because players don't want to listen to that guy and that guy is ALWAYS around.

Crappy leaders with lots of hours hurt a cabal far more than decent leaders with less hours.